Retrieve detailed item data by Kroger UPC, including title, description, image, brand, category, price, availability, and rating for single-item lookups.
Get a Kroger product. Returns product detail for one Kroger item: title, description, image, brand, category trail, price/availability, and rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upc | Yes | Kroger product UPC/id (the last path segment of the product page URL) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully enumerates returned fields including price/availability and rating, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or whether availability is store-specific.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return contents immediately following. No filler or redundant statements.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the product-detail fields returned and identifies the required UPC. It is nearly sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it omits runtime caveats such as store-specific pricing or errors.
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 single upc parameter is already documented in the schema as the last URL path segment. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Get a Kroger product" and clarifies it returns detail for one Kroger item. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as kroger_products or kroger_search, but the one-item scope is clear.
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?
Usage is implied by "one Kroger item" and the required UPC, suggesting a detail lookup when the identifier is known. However, it does not state when to use this versus kroger_products, kroger_search, or kroger_product_reviews.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.