Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

gucci_product

Get a Gucci product. Returns product detail for one style: name, price, images, stock, and PDP attributes available from Gucci's current storefront, including description, breadcrumbs, SKU, colors, materials, and sizes.

Instructions

Get a Gucci product. Returns product detail for one style: name, price, images, stock, and PDP attributes available from Gucci's current storefront, including description, breadcrumbs, SKU, colors, materials, and sizes. style_code comes from gucci-search's or gucci-category's own style_code field. PDP-only fields are omitted if the detail page is unavailable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
style_codeYesProduct style code, from gucci-search's or gucci-category's own style_code field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields and discloses the conditional behavior that 'PDP-only fields are omitted if the detail page is unavailable.' It could go further on sourcing/availability caveats, but the read behavior and a key failure mode are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return fields, then input provenance, then a caveat. Every sentence is relevant, though the field enumeration is dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the main conditional caveat. No annotations exist, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's provenance (gucci-search/gucci-category style_code) is already in the schema description, so the description largely repeats it. Baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Gucci product), and immediately scopes it to 'product detail for one style.' It is clearly distinguishable from the search/category siblings by describing a single-style detail fetch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent where the input comes from (style_code from gucci-search or gucci-category), which implies the correct retrieval workflow. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to route the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools