get_in_app_productRetrieve detailed information about a specific in-app product using its SKU and package name to inspect pricing, availability, and configuration.
Get details of a specific in-app product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Product SKU identifier | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get details' does signal a read-only lookup, but it adds little beyond the tool name and title. No additional context is given about permissions, error cases, or response characteristics, though the output schema helps cover the return value.
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 short and front-loaded, but it mostly restates the title 'Get In App Product' with only the slight clarification of 'a specific' product. It is not verbose, but it also does not add much informative content beyond the structured metadata.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter getter with a rich output schema and full parameter descriptions, so the basic calling contract is sufficiently covered. However, the absence of usage guidance and any differentiation from many similar sibling tools leaves the description somewhat incomplete for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.
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 both parameters (sku and package_name) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships, so the baseline score of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific in-app product') and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from list/batch retrieval siblings like list_in_app_products and batch_get_in_app_products. The function's scope as a single-item lookup is immediately clear.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_in_app_products, batch_get_in_app_products, or get_product_purchase. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for fetching just one in-app product.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.