Retrieve a single product's details including price, stock, and categories; for variable products, get each variation's SKU, price, and stock.
One product with price, stock and categories. For a variable product the variations are included with their own SKU, price and stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is added context — and it delivers the non-obvious detail that variable products include their variations with separate SKU, price and stock. It omits error/not-found behavior, but goes modestly beyond the annotations.
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 core resource, then the variation caveat. No filler; nothing repeated from structured fields.
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 shape needn't be explained, and the variation note is a helpful addition. Still, for a lookup tool with a single undocumented ID parameter, the description should say what identifier to supply and what happens when nothing matches.
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 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the sole required parameter, product_id, leaving its type meaning (integer product identifier, not SKU or slug) to be guessed. With an undocumented parameter, this falls below the baseline of 3 that a high-coverage schema would earn.
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?
Names the resource (a single product) and enumerates what the caller gets back: price, stock, categories. That implicitly separates it from list_products, though it never names the sibling or states the singular/plural distinction 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 only implied by 'One product' — an agent can infer this is the single-item fetch paired with list_products, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what to do without a product_id, and no handling note for missing IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.