shopify_get_product_by_idRetrieve full product details by Shopify product ID, including variants, inventory item IDs, options, media, collections, and SEO fields for store management.
Full product detail: all variants with inventory item IDs, product options, media, collections, and SEO fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Product GID e.g. gid://shopify/Product/1234567890 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that a broad payload (variants, media, collections, SEO) is returned; it says nothing about not-found behavior, rate limits, or auth.
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 tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the most valuable fact (full detail including nested resources) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.
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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the included fields. It is nearly complete for a single-record getter, missing only error behavior on an invalid or missing 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single productId parameter is fully documented in the schema with a GID example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?
The returned-content phrase 'Full product detail' plus the title makes it clear this fetches a single product's complete record, which implicitly contrasts with the plural shopify_get_products list tool. However, the description itself never states the action or the ID-based lookup, leaving that to the title.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tools named. The agent might infer usage from the enumerated fields, but nothing routes it between this and shopify_get_products.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.