Fetch normalized details for a single Oh Polly product by passing its URL handle.
Get a Oh Polly product. Returns normalized 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful behavioral context: the output is 'normalized,' and the storefront base URL is fixed server-side (so no URL configuration is needed). It doesn't disclose read-only status, error behavior, or any rate limits, and without an output schema the exact return shape remains unspecified. Some value, but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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, all earning their place: purpose, return scope, and parameter semantics. Front-loaded with the main action. Minor grammar blemish ('a Oh Polly' instead of 'an Oh Polly') keeps it from a perfect score.
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 fetch-by-handle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the input semantics, and the fixed endpoint behavior. It's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly; a mention of alternatives or error/empty-result behavior would make it more complete.
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% (handle described as 'Product handle'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that handle is the product's URL slug and that the base URL is fixed—telling the agent exactly what value to extract from an Oh Polly product page URL.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a Oh Polly product'), and clarifies scope with 'for one Oh Polly product handle.' The phrase 'Returns normalized product detail' distinguishes this from sibling list tools like ohpolly_products and ohpolly_collection_products, making it clear this is the single-item endpoint.
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 description gives clear usage context: use this tool when you have a single product handle and want normalized detail. It explains how to supply the handle (URL slug) and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so the agent won't attempt to pass a full URL. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions like 'for multiple products use ohpolly_products.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.