Fetch Gartner Peer Insights product details by alias or URL, including vendor, ratings, and company profile, for vendor research and comparison.
Get full Gartner Peer Insights product details by alias or URL: vendor, ratings, and company profile. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product alias or URL. e.g. forcepoint-dlp |
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 behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the returned fields, but omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid alias.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and followed by the cost note. Nothing is redundant, though the pricing sentence is the only piece of behavioral value beyond the return summary.
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 or annotations, the description compensates reasonably by naming the returned data (vendor, ratings, company profile) and the cost. Auth, error handling, and coverage limits remain unstated for a single-record fetch.
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 is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description only restates 'alias or URL', adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Gartner Peer Insights product details), specifies the identifier form (alias or URL), and enumerates the payload (vendor, ratings, company profile). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling run_gartner_products_search, which is the search counterpart.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The 'by alias or URL' phrasing implies an identifier is required but does not explain when to reach for this rather than the product search or vendor tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.