Fetch normalized details for a single The Body Shop product by its URL handle, returning clean JSON for product data.
Get a The Body Shop product. Returns normalized product detail for one The Body Shop (https://www.thebodyshop.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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that handle is the URL slug, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'normalized product detail' includes, error behavior, or any rate limits, leaving an agent to guess at the response shape.
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, action-first, with no filler. The key scoping ('one product by handle') and essential parameter clarification are front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description would need to explain return values more explicitly than 'normalized product detail' to be fully complete. It is enough to invoke correctly given the single simple parameter, but leaves the response structure unspecified. A list of included fields or an example would improve it.
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 only says 'Product handle'; the description adds that handle is the product's URL slug and the storefront URL is fixed server-side, helping the agent pass the correct value. This goes beyond the schema, so it earns an above-baseline score.
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 ('The Body Shop product'), and explicitly limits scope to 'one' product addressed by handle, distinguishing it from plural siblings like thebodyshop_products. The mention of normalized product detail further clarifies the nature of the response.
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 makes clear this is for fetching a single product when a handle/URL slug is known, but it does not name alternatives (e.g., thebodyshop_products for listing all products, or search tools) nor state when not to use it. Context is clear but alternatives are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.