get_productRetrieves full product details and current stock for a single SKU, with money values returned in integer cents for accurate pricing.
Full details and current stock for one product. All money values are integer cents (12999 = $129.99).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Product SKU, e.g. TLS-001 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| stock | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| priceCents | Yes | ||
| reorderLevel | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note not in the structured fields: all money values are integer cents with a concrete example. It says nothing about not-found behavior or whether stock is real-time, which is what the parenthetical 'current stock' hints at but never resolves.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the identity of the resource is front-loaded ahead of the unit convention. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. Only the unit convention is spelled out, which suggests the response shape is left to the output schema, so the burden is appropriately light.
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 the SKU pattern plus example are fully documented in the schema, so this is the baseline case. The description adds no formatting, normalization, or case-sensitivity meaning beyond what the parameter definition already provides.
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?
The description names a specific resource and scope: 'Full details and current stock for one product', which cleanly separates it from list-oriented siblings like search_products and list_low_stock. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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: 'one product' signals a single-record lookup, and the required SKU parameter suggests the caller must already know the identifier. There is no explicit guidance that search_products should be used first to discover a SKU, nor any stated exclusion or alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.