get_productRetrieve a product's full public listing from LaunchOnIt by slug: tagline, description, target audience, problem solved, pricing, tech stack, links, and upvotes.
Full public listing for one product: tagline, description, who it's for, the problem it solves, pricing, tech stack, links and upvotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug from launchon.it/products/{slug}. |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'public' context and enumerates the listing fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds substantial behavioral depth beyond them.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the content included. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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 tool with one well-documented parameter, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context by enumerating the returned listing fields. An agent can understand what it will receive and how to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.
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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'slug' is already documented as 'The slug from launchon.it/products/{slug}.' The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource — 'get' a single product — and enumerates exactly what the listing contains: tagline, description, target audience, problem solved, pricing, tech stack, links, and upvotes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or get_launch_calendar by focusing on one product's full public listing.
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 implies this tool is used when you need the full public listing for one product, rather than searching or viewing calendars/leaderboards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions such as 'use search_products when you don't have a slug.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.