pennylane-mcp-server

pennylane_get_product

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve product details by ID, returning label, price excluding tax, VAT, unit, and associated accounting account.

Instructions

Récupère le détail d'un produit par son identifiant. Retourne : libellé, prix HT, TVA, unité, compte comptable associé.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "pennylane_get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique du produit.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 the returned field set (libellé, prix HT, TVA, unité, compte comptable), which is mild added context, but it discloses nothing about error behavior, missing-id handling, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second line listing return fields is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, keeping it just below a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only, single-id retrieval with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is essentially complete. Since the output schema exists, the return-field enumeration is a bonus rather than a requirement, so nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Identifiant unique du produit', so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Récupère le détail d'un produit par son identifiant'), which clearly differentiates it from the list/create/update product siblings by naming the identifier-based detail retrieval. It is clear but does not explicitly name an alternative like pennylane_list_products for enumeration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should have an id (presumably from pennylane_list_products) and that this is the single-record lookup versus the list tool. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server