prodpad_get_product_keyresultsRetrieve all key results linked to a specific ProdPad product by providing its UUID, so you can review OKR progress tied to that product.
Get all key results linked to a specific product.
Args:
id (string): Product UUID
| 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. The description adds nothing about pagination, return shape, or truncation behavior, so it earns only the baseline for a well-annotated read tool.
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 an Args block that is short and to the point. The Args section largely duplicates the schema, costing a little, but nothing is padded or redundant at length.
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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool with rich annotations and a complete input schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It lacks only optional depth (return format, pagination), which is minor here.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the schema already documents 'id'. The description restates it as 'Product UUID', which is slightly narrower than the schema's 'numeric or UUID' but adds no new meaning; 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 all key results linked to a specific product' — which is clearly distinct from siblings like prodpad_get_keyresult (single) and prodpad_get_objective_keyresults (by objective). It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives is offered. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the product-scoped variant rather than the objective-scoped or single-keyresult tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.