Retrieve full Capterra product details by ID or URL, including vendor, pricing, ratings, and features. Use it to compare software or enrich product data.
Get full Capterra product details by id or URL: vendor, pricing, ratings, and features. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product id or URL. e.g. 176586 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real behavioral trait — a flat cost of 5 points per successful run, which helps an agent budget calls. It says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior, and 'successful run' billing implies failed lookups are free but this is left implicit.
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 with zero filler: the lookup and its payload come first, and the pricing note follows. Nothing is redundant and the front-loading is exactly what an agent scanning tool lists benefits from.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (vendor, pricing, ratings, features), and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only shortfall is the absent routing guidance relative to sibling Capterra tools, which is a usage gap rather than a completeness-of-call gap.
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 100% and the single 'product' parameter already documents that it accepts an id or URL with the example 176586. The description restates 'by id or URL' without adding accepted formats, URL normalization rules, or error behavior for malformed input, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.
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 (Get) and resource (Capterra product details) plus the key the agent supplies (id or URL) and enumerates the returned fields (vendor, pricing, ratings, features). This implicitly distinguishes it from run_capterra_products_search and run_capterra_products_reviews, which deal with sets and reviews rather than a single full record, though no sibling is 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?
The description never says when to reach for this tool versus run_capterra_products_search (discovery) or run_capterra_products_reviews. There is no statement of prerequisites such as needing a valid Capterra product id/URL from a prior search, so the agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.