Retrieve detailed commerce data for a specific item on the Rebag shop. Use the product URL slug to fetch all necessary product information for analysis.
Get a Rebag product. Returns 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context (fixed server-side URL, handle as slug) but does not cover error behavior, permissions, or return shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The core action and key constraint are stated first.
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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (product detail) and how to supply the handle. It could say more about the detail shape, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'handle' is the product's URL slug, clarifying format and origin. That extra context earns a 4.
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 ('Rebag product') and clarifies it returns detail for one product handle, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like rebag_products. It does not explicitly name alternatives, keeping it at 4.
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: use when you have a product handle to fetch details. The description notes the storefront URL is fixed server-side and handle is the URL slug, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus rebag_search or rebag_products, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.