Fetch an Oh Polly product's details by URL slug; returns structured product data for the specified item.
Get a Oh Polly product. Returns product detail for one Oh Polly (https://www.ohpolly.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 burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: it returns detail for one product and the storefront URL is fixed server-side (so no store param is needed). However it says nothing about error behavior for invalid handles, rate limits, or response shape.
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 purpose, then the return, then the parameter clarification. No filler or redundancy.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return type, and parameter format adequately. It is close to complete, only missing any indication of error/failure behavior or how the detail should be consumed.
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 100% for the single param, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Product handle' by specifying it is the product's URL slug. That clarifies the expected input format, which the schema alone does not.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Oh Polly product'), and clarifies it returns detail for a single product handle, which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling ohpolly_products. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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: call it when you have a product handle. The description never states when to use this versus ohpolly_products or ohpolly_product_recommendations, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the fixed server-side URL note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.