Fetch detailed information for a single Rothy's product using its URL slug handle, returning clean product data from the fixed storefront endpoint.
Get a Rothy's product. Returns product detail for one Rothy's (https://www.rothys.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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the handle is a URL slug, implying a read operation. It does not, however, state what fields are returned, pagination/limits, or error behavior for an invalid handle.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place (identity, return, scope, parameter meaning). 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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description is the sole source, and it covers identity, scope, and the key parameter. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned product detail, which would fully close the gap for a detail-fetch tool.
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 adds real meaning by clarifying that `handle` is the product's URL slug rather than an arbitrary identifier. That format detail is genuinely beyond the schema's terse "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 ("Get") and resource ("a Rothy's product"), scoped to a single product identified by handle. This is distinct from list-style siblings like rothys_products, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 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 only implied: fetching one product by its handle. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion telling the agent when to prefer rothys_products or rothys_search_suggest, and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.