get_productRetrieve full details for a single Breww product by ID, including code, type, price, barcode, volumes, duty, component drinks/stock items, tags, and custom fields.
One product in full: code, type, price, barcode, volumes, duty, the drinks and stock items it is made of, tags and custom fields. Uses GET /products/{id}/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product ID (a positive whole number) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned data (code, type, price, barcode, volumes, duty, composition, tags, custom fields) and naming the underlying endpoint, which is valuable given no output schema exists.
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 tight sentences with the record scope front-loaded and the field inventory packed into one list. Nothing is padded and the endpoint reference is a compact bonus.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields. Missing only minor operational details such as error behavior for an unknown ID, which is not critical here.
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 parameter is fully described there, so the description need not repeat it. 'GET /products/{id}/' faintly reinforces that product_id is a path identifier, but adds no format or constraint beyond the schema; 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?
States a specific verb (implicitly retrieves) and resource ('One product in full') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. The single-record scope is clear against the sibling list_products, though that sibling is not named explicitly.
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 implied: 'One product' signals this is the single-record fetch that pairs with list_products, and the required product_id makes the precondition evident. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the alternative for listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.