Retrieve normalized details for a specific Mercadona product using its product ID and warehouse code. Returns product information for use in shopping carts or inventory queries.
Get normalized details for one product in an opaque warehouse code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| warehouse | Yes | ||
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'normalized details' and 'opaque warehouse code', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the product is not found, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 wasted words. It communicates the action and resource immediately and the 'opaque warehouse code' adds necessary context without verbosity.
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?
Though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential behavioral context: no mention of read-only nature, error cases (e.g., product not found), or prerequisites like authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this is incomplete and could lead to misuse.
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 add meaning to parameters. It explains that the warehouse parameter is an 'opaque code', which is helpful, but does not clarify the format or constraints for product_id beyond the obvious. It partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one product'), and clarifies the output is 'normalized details'. It also notes the warehouse parameter is an 'opaque code', which distinguishes this from search or batch operations and makes the tool's scope explicit.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_products or search_products_batch. The phrase 'for one product' implies exact ID lookup, but it does not state that search tools are for finding products, nor any conditions for preferring this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.