Retrieve detailed product information from Steve Madden using its URL handle. Provide the product slug to fetch structured JSON for one item.
Get a Steve Madden product. Returns product detail for one Steve Madden (https://www.stevemadden.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed; 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 but only partially. It discloses that the operation is a retrieval returning 'product detail' for a single entity and that the storefront URL is fixed, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about response shape, error behavior for a bad handle, or any access constraints.
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 core action, then the return contract, then the one input hint. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to interpret the only input. The minor gap is that it doesn't tell the agent where to source a handle.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description exceeds it by defining `handle` as the product's URL slug, which is more precise than the schema's bare 'Product handle'. That gives the agent a concrete mental model of the 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Steve Madden product') and clarifies it returns detail for ONE product handle, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool stevemadden_products. It stops short of naming or contrasting that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only 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 never says when to use this tool versus stevemadden_products, stevemadden_collection_products, or stevemadden_search_suggest, nor how the caller is expected to obtain a valid handle in the first place. It describes the input but offers no selection guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.