Retrieve detailed product information for a single SKIMS item using its URL handle. Provide the handle to get structured product data from the fixed storefront.
Get a SKIMS product. Returns 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?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, meaning no URL/base configuration is needed, and that the handle is a URL slug. It still says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Slight redundancy between 'Get a SKIMS product' and 'Returns product detail for one SKIMS product handle,' but nothing extraneous.
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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, what it needs, and one non-obvious behavioral constraint (fixed server-side URL). Only handle-provenance guidance 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%, so baseline is 3, but the schema's own description is just 'Product handle' while the description adds that it is the product's URL slug — genuine semantic clarification 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a SKIMS product') and scopes it to a single product via handle, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like skims_products and skims_collection_products. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the singular scope is clear.
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: the agent must already hold a product handle. There is no statement of when to prefer this over skims_products or how to obtain a handle (e.g., from skims_search_suggest), so the routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.