Retrieve product details for a single Kylie Cosmetics item by providing its URL slug handle.
Get a Kylie Cosmetics product. Returns product detail for one Kylie Cosmetics (https://www.kyliecosmetics.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side; handle is the product's URL slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Product handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side (no store/domain parameter) and that the input is a URL slug, but it is silent on what happens with an invalid or missing handle, whether results are cached, and what the returned product detail contains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then the two pieces of context an agent actually needs. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what the input means, and the fixed-store constraint. The remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to how a handle is discovered.
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 coverage is already 100% (the single param is documented as 'Product handle'), so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: the handle is the product's URL slug and the storefront is fixed server-side, which tells the agent where the value comes from and that no store selector is needed.
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+resource: 'Get a Kylie Cosmetics product' and specifies it returns detail for ONE product handle, which implicitly separates it from the plural kyliecosmetics_products listing sibling. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the singular/plural naming rather than being told.
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 rather than stated: the tool is a detail lookup that requires an already-known handle. The description never says where to obtain a handle (e.g., kyliecosmetics_products or kyliecosmetics_search_suggest) or when to prefer this over kyliecosmetics_page or kyliecosmetics_collection_products.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.