Retrieve normalized product details for one SKIMS item using its product handle or URL slug, returning structured JSON from the fixed storefront.
Get a SKIMS product. Returns normalized product detail for one SKIMS (https://skims.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 provided, the description carries the burden and it adds useful context: 'Returns normalized product detail' and 'storefront URL is fixed server-side; handle is the product's URL slug'. This explains the input's relation to the API but leaves out details about return fields, error conditions, or any side effects.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence earns its place. The second sentence clarifies the parameter format without any fluff.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns (normalized product detail) and how to supply the parameter. It could be more detailed about the return structure, but it is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the 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% but the schema only says 'Product handle'. The description goes further by explaining that the handle is the URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is valuable semantic context beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SKIMS product'), and clarifies scope with 'one SKIMS product handle'. It differentiates from sibling tools like skims_products (plural) and skims_product_recommendations by emphasizing single-product lookup.
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: it is the tool to call when you have a single SKIMS product handle. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like skims_products or skims_product_recommendations, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.