loyverse_get_variantFetch a single product variant by its ID, including per-store pricing, to see exact variant details and how prices differ by store.
Fetch one variant by id, including its per-store pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is provided. The description adds the useful context that the response includes per-store pricing, but it does not mention error behavior, response shape, or authorization requirements; these are minor gaps for a simple read-only getter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the per-store pricing detail provides valuable output context without bloating the description.
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-only getter, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the id to pass, the expected output scope, and the safety profile. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by the explicit 'per-store pricing' detail, though full response fields are not enumerated.
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?
The schema has one string parameter, variant_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description maps it via 'by id', which is minimal but adequate for an obvious get-by-id call; it does not clarify id format, provenance, or uniqueness beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Fetch'), resource ('variant'), selection criteria ('by id'), and a notable output detail ('including its per-store pricing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loyverse_list_variants (plural listing) and loyverse_upsert_variant (write operation).
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 when a variant id is available ('Fetch one variant by id'), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over loyverse_list_variants or how to obtain the id. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.