Retrieve Target product details by TCIN and store ID, including price, images, rating, category, and selected-store availability.
Get a Target product. Returns product details for one Target item, including product content, images, price, rating, category, and availability flags for the selected store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tcin | Yes | Numeric Target item id (TCIN) | |
| store_id | No | Target store id used for pricing and availability |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses the return payload and ties availability to the selected store, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when store_id is omitted. Adequate but leaving real gaps.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the payload second. No filler or repetition, though the field enumeration is a touch list-like.
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 exists, so the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload, and does so thoroughly. It is nearly complete for this tool; only edge-case behavior (missing store_id, invalid TCIN) is absent.
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 schema already documents tcin and store_id. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by explaining that availability flags are scoped to the selected store, which clarifies store_id's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get a Target product') and enumerates the returned fields (content, images, price, rating, category, availability flags). It is clearly a detail-retrieval tool distinct from target_search, but it never names any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.
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 detail-oriented framing implies 'use this when you already have a TCIN from a search,' but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated, and no alternative (target_search, target_category_products) is named. Usage is implied, not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.