Fetch a Gucci store's details by slug, including name, phone, address, opening hours, and photos.
Get a Gucci store's detail. Returns one Gucci store's full detail: name, phone, address, opening hours, and photos. slug comes from gucci-stores' own slug field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Store slug, from gucci-stores' own slug field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the read behavior and the returned fields ('name, phone, address, opening hours, and photos'), which is useful. It does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or any constraints beyond the slug source, but for a simple single-record getter this is a reasonable but not rich disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the return fields and the slug provenance, so every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the return fields, and the parameter source. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to sibling tools like gucci_stores for obtaining the slug, but that gap is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's slug guidance ('slug comes from gucci-stores' own slug field') essentially repeats the schema's parameter description. It adds no new format, source, or example detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Gucci store's detail' and clarifies it returns one store's full detail with fields like name, phone, address, opening hours, and photos. It is clear about the singular scope but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as gucci_stores or gucci_store_search, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'slug comes from gucci-stores' own slug field' implies the tool is meant to be used after obtaining a slug from the gucci-stores listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gucci_store_search or gucci_stores, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.