Fetch The Body Shop product details by URL slug handle to retrieve structured data for a single item.
Get a The Body Shop product. Returns 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 the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context ('storefront URL is fixed server-side'), which tells the agent no URL/domain parameter is needed, but it omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, error behavior, and any return-shape hints.
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?
Front-loaded and short, with the scoping constraint (single product handle) early. There is minor redundancy between 'Get a The Body Shop product' and 'Returns product detail for one ... product handle', which slightly dilutes efficiency.
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, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers purpose, the required handle format, and the fixed-storefront behavior. It could say more about what the returned product detail contains, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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% and the schema already says 'Product handle', so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by specifying that the handle is the product's URL slug, clarifying the expected format 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 and resource ('Get a The Body Shop product') and scopes it to a single product handle, which implicitly separates it from list tools like thebodyshop_products. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so sibling differentiation is left to 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 phrase 'for one ... product handle' implies the tool is used after a handle is known (e.g., from a search or listing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.