Fetches full details for one Migros product using its numeric ID from search results, helping you inspect specifications, pricing, and availability for a specific item.
Full detail for one Migros product by numeric id (from search results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a single-record read ('Full detail for one ... product'), and the output schema covers the response shape, but it says nothing about behavior for an unknown/invalid id (empty result vs error), authentication, or rate limits. For a low-risk id lookup this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full detail for one Migros product'), with the id requirement and its source appended as a qualifier. No filler wording to trim.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and for a one-required-parameter lookup it covers the essentials: what it returns, for what key, and where the key comes from. Only edge-case behavior (invalid or non-existent id) is missing.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage (schema only says 'integer / Product Id'), and the description compensates by defining it as a numeric identifier and stating where to obtain it — from search results. That provenance hint is the key operational detail the schema omits; only failure behavior for a bad id is left unaddressed.
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+resource+scope combo: retrieve the full detail record for exactly one Migros product, keyed by numeric id. The word 'one' and the '(from search results)' clause implicitly separate it from the sibling migros_search_products, so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening either schema.
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 parenthetical 'from search results' implies you call this only after a search has produced an id, which is real but implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g. use migros_search_products first if you only have a name), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.