printify-mcp-server

printify_get_product

Retrieve a full product from Printify, including variants, images, and print areas, using shop and product IDs.

Instructions

One product in full, including variants, images and print areas.

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": {
      "shop_id": "<shop_id>",
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "printify_get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shop_id`	Yes	Your shop id. printify_get_shops lists them.
`product_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the response content (variants, images, print areas) and the verb 'get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, auth requirements, or error behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key return fields. No filler, no repetition, and every word contributes value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main return contents but, given no output schema, it does not fully specify the return structure. It also omits guidance on how to obtain or validate product_id and does not explicitly frame when to use this tool versus list_products. For a simple two-parameter GET tool this is close to sufficient but has notable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: shop_id is described, but product_id only has minLength. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, failing to explain that product_id likely comes from list_products or how to identify it. The description does not compensate for the missing product_id schema description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves one product in full, including variants, images, and print areas. The phrase 'One product in full' distinguishes it from sibling printify_list_products, which handles multiple products.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context that this is for retrieving a single product's complete details, implying it should be used over list_products when the full product object is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server