Retrieves a single product's full details—family, brand, category, supplier, tags, and variant attributes—using product ID or SKU for quick lookup in Lightspeed X-Series.
One product with its family, brand, category, supplier, tags and variant attributes. Pass product_id, or sku to look it up by SKU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| product_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about the object graph returned, but omits error behavior (missing product) and key precedence, which matter for an openWorld lookup.
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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned sub-entities, then the addressing keys. Nothing is redundant, though a few more words on exclusivity would have been worth the space.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and the annotation set covers the read-only semantics. Still, for a two-parameter lookup with zero schema documentation, the absence of guidance on parameter precedence and not-found behavior leaves a real gap.
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%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that sku is an alternate lookup key and that product_id identifies the record, but leaves unresolved whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence, or the expected formats.
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 ('One product') and enumerates the related entities returned (family, brand, category, supplier, tags, variant attributes), which distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_products. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the singular scoping makes the role 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?
It states the two lookup keys ('Pass product_id, or sku'), which implies a targeted single-record fetch. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_products or list_products, nor what happens if both keys are supplied or neither is.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.