get_product_by_idRetrieve one e-commerce product from MySQL by its numeric ID to view product details, inventory, and catalog data.
Fetch a single product by numeric ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| sku | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| price | Yes | ||
| quantity | Yes | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Fetch' clearly conveys a read-only operation, which is helpful, but it does not mention behavior for missing IDs, error responses, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Fetch a single product by numeric ID' efficiently states the action, target, and key constraint, earning every word.
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?
Given a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description plus schema provides the essential information for a correct call. Minor gaps like error behavior and explicit usage routing remain, but they do not block an agent from invoking this tool correctly.
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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'id'. It only adds 'numeric ID', which essentially restates the schema's integer type. It does not explain what the ID represents or provide any meaning beyond the property name and schema constraints.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('product') and a clear qualifier ('single', 'by numeric ID'), which makes it immediately distinct from sibling tools like add_product and delete_product. An agent can tell this is a read-by-ID operation without needing to inspect schemas.
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?
The description implies usage through the contrast between 'Fetch' and the sibling add/delete tools, but it never explicitly states when this tool should be chosen or when another tool would be more appropriate. The guidance is present only by inference, not direct routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.