Retrieve detailed ePER part information—description, family, unit, weight, supersession counts, and assembly components—to identify and verify parts.
Get details of a part number: description, family, unit, weight, counts of supersessions, and the components if it is an assembly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for descriptions: ISO code (ja, en, it, de, ...) or ePER code. Default ja; falls back to English. | |
| part_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned fields and a conditional behavior (components only when the part is an assembly), which is real value. It says nothing about behavior when the part number is unknown, whether lookups are cached, or result size, which is a notable gap for an unannotated, output-schema-less tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that spends its words listing actual return fields rather than filler. It is close to ideal length, though the field list could be grouped or the part-number expectation appended without bloat.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a fair job of describing the response shape, but omits what an agent needs to call it confidently: accepted part-number format and not-found behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter lookup tool.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'lang' is documented in the schema with its ja default and English fallback, but 'part_number' has no schema description and the description never specifies format, normalization, or prefix expectations. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating that a part number is the input.
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 (get) and resource (details of a part number) and enumerates the payload: description, family, unit, weight, supersession counts, assembly components. It does not name or contrast with siblings like get_part_history or where_used, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Implies you must already have a part number, but gives no when-to-use conditions and no routing against near siblings such as get_part_history, where_used, or search_parts. Nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.