ah_get_productRetrieve detailed Albert Heijn product data—description, nutrition, allergens, unit sizes, and pricing—to compare or verify items before purchase.
Get detailed information for a specific Albert Heijn product: description, nutritional values, allergens, unit sizes, and pricing. Product pages are cached for up to 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product ID (e.g. 'wi196825' or '196825') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — results are cached up to 24 hours, so pricing/staleness may lag. It stays silent on auth requirements and on what happens for an unknown or delisted product ID.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned-field list, and the caching caveat is a distinct, non-redundant fact. No filler, though the field enumeration could have been compressed into a single clause.
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 read-only single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned data and freshness, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only error/not-found behavior for an invalid product ID.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with example formats ('wi196825' or '196825') already in the schema. The description adds nothing about the ID beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Get detailed information') plus resource ('a specific Albert Heijn product'), and it enumerates the returned fields (description, nutrition, allergens, sizes, pricing). It only implicitly differentiates from ah_get_products_bulk / ah_search_products via the word 'specific', never naming an alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'a specific product' suggests single-item lookup rather than the bulk/search siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to ah_get_products_bulk for multi-item needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.