Retrieve normalized product details for a Kylie Cosmetics item using its URL slug, and get structured data for one storefront product.
Get a Kylie Cosmetics product. Returns normalized 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 present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that `handle` is the product's URL slug, which clarifies the input contract. However, it does not describe error behavior, pagination, or the specific fields in the normalized output, leaving some ambiguity.
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 sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded ('Get a Kylie Cosmetics product'), followed immediately by input semantics and the fixed-URL note. 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 one-parameter single-product fetch, the description covers the action, the input format, and the fixed base URL. It lacks an explicit description of the returned fields, but 'normalized product detail' gives a reasonable expectation, and no output schema is available to fill that gap.
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?
The schema only describes `handle` as 'Product handle', which is generic. The description adds meaningful detail by clarifying that `handle` is the product's URL slug and that the server-side base URL is fixed, so the agent knows not to pass a full URL or other identifier.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Kylie Cosmetics product' and 'Returns normalized product detail for one ... product handle.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kyliecosmetics_collection_products or kyliecosmetics_products by focusing on a single product identified by handle.
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 'for one ... product handle' clearly signals the appropriate use case: when the agent has a specific handle and needs exactly one product. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for searching or batch operations, but the single-product scope provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.