get_product_attributesRetrieve all attributes for an OpenCart product by product ID, including CAS number, molecular weight, and storage details.
Get all attributes for a product (e.g. CAS number, molecular weight, storage).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'Get' plus 'all attributes' adequately signals a safe, non-mutating read with full-attribute scope. It does not mention permissions, whether a missing product errors or returns empty, or pagination, which leaves residual ambiguity for a zero-annotation 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 short sentence, front-loaded with the operation and finished with a compact illustrative list. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical examples slightly dilute the core statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no routing versus get_product/get_products, the definition is only minimally complete for correct selection and invocation.
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 0% and the single product_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'for a product' only implies the identifier exists; it adds no format, range, or resolution detail (e.g. internal ID vs SKU).
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 all attributes for a product') and illustrates the kind of data returned (CAS number, molecular weight, storage). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like get_product, though it never explicitly says how it differs from get_product or get_products.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_product or get_products. The agent must infer the invocation context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.