Retrieve an Otto.de product's public details, images, selectable colors, and sizes as JSON, using browser rendering for JavaScript-dependent pages.
Get an Otto.de product. Returns a product's public detail, images, selectable colors and sizes. This endpoint uses a browser renderer because Otto.de product pages require JavaScript rendering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Otto.de product URL returned by otto-search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds meaningful context by disclosing that a browser-rendered endpoint is used and why. It also lists the public content that is returned. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only product fetch this is enough.
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?
It uses three short sentences, leading with the purpose and then adding the behavioral note on JS rendering. There is mild redundancy between 'Get' and 'Returns', but the description avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan.
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 single-parameter product fetch with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (public details, images, colors, and sizes) and explains how the fetch works (browser renderer). It does not give a return-shape example, but the stated categories are sufficient for a basic product fetch.
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 single 'url' parameter already has a 100% schema description: 'Canonical Otto.de product URL returned from otto-search'. The tool description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond that, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clear verb 'Returns' and a resource ('Otto.de product'), and lists the kinds of data it returns: detail, images, selectable colors, and sizes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself from, but the specific 'Otto.de product' framing makes it clear it is a product-detail tool different from otto_search or otto_categories.
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 implies its use ('Get a product') and adds a useful constraint (browser renderer because JS is required), but it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives. The parameter schema mentions the URL should come from otto-search, but that guidance sits outside the description, so the description itself only provides implicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.