Retrieve detailed product information from PSA Team Store by providing a product URL handle; returns structured data for that item.
Get a PSA Store product. Returns product detail for one PSA Team Store (https://store.psacard.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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it usefully discloses two behavioral facts: the storefront URL is fixed server-side (no store URL needed) and the handle is a URL slug. It says nothing about return format, auth, or rate limits, so it is only moderately transparent.
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 action, then the return scope, then the key server-side constraint. No filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description bears some burden for return values; 'Returns product detail' is minimally adequate but does not sketch what detail is returned. For a single-param read tool it is otherwise 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% so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining that the handle is the product's URL slug, adding format meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Product handle'.
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+resource ('Get a PSA Store product') and clarifies it returns detail for a single product handle, distinguishing it in spirit from the list-oriented psastore_products. It does not name any sibling explicitly, which keeps it from 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?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance and no reference to the obvious alternative psastore_products for browsing vs. this single-item fetch. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.