prodpad_get_productFetch details for a specific ProdPad product by its numeric ID. Use it to retrieve product data for roadmaps, OKRs, ideas, or feedback workflows.
Get details for a specific product by ID.
Args:
id (string): Product ID (numeric)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The resource ID (numeric or UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on what a missing ID does, what fields are returned, or how the product relates to roadmaps/keyresults siblings.
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 single sentence with no filler, but the 'Args:' block merely duplicates the input schema rather than earning its place. Still compact and easy to scan.
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 tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate, but it never says what 'details' are returned or how this product relates to roadmaps, keyresults, or initiatives. An agent cannot anticipate the response shape.
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 baseline is 3; the description only restates the single parameter. It is slightly less accurate than the schema, calling the ID 'numeric' while the schema allows 'numeric or UUID'.
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 (product) plus the retrieval key (by ID), so the agent knows this fetches a single product rather than a collection. It does not explicitly name prodpad_list_products as the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus prodpad_list_products or the other get_* siblings; the single-retrieval intent is only implied by 'a specific product by ID'. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.