Retrieve normalized product details from Rebag using a product handle slug; returns clean JSON for commerce data.
Get a Rebag product. Returns normalized product detail for one Rebag (https://shop.rebag.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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the handle is the URL slug, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid handle), or any rate limits. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is 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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the critical parameter detail (handle = URL slug) is presented immediately. Every word adds value.
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 single-parameter product fetch with no output schema, the description covers the key operational detail (how to obtain the handle) and notes the fixed URL. It does not address edge cases like invalid handles or response format, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity. The absence of annotations is partially offset by the clear scope.
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 input schema already documents the single 'handle' parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that the handle is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Product handle' and helps the agent understand what value to pass.
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 'Get a Rebag product' and explains it returns normalized product detail for one handle. The verb and resource are specific, and it adds the detail that the handle is the URL slug. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rebag_products or rebag_search, though the single-product scope is implied.
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 this is for fetching a single product via a handle, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative tools (e.g., rebag_search for discovery or rebag_products for lists). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.