Fetch Moda Operandi product details from a URL. Returns price, availability, size inventory, description, designer, color, and images.
Get a Moda Operandi product. Returns public product detail, price, availability, size inventory, description, designer, color, and images for a Moda Operandi product URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Moda Operandi product URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It notes the data is 'public' but doesn't mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 one sentence, efficiently stating the purpose and listing return fields. It front-loads the core action and is very concise with no wasted words. Slightly better than average due to its clarity and brevity.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and return data but omits potential caveats like URL format requirements, limitations, or error conditions. It's adequate but lacks some context a calling agent might need.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter. The description doesn't add much beyond restating that it's a Moda Operandi product URL, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool fetches product details for a Moda Operandi product, listing the specific data returned (price, availability, size inventory, etc.). It distinguishes itself from category and designer tools by focusing on a single product URL, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The implication is that it's for product URLs, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.