Fetch Target product data by TCIN or URL for price, ratings, images, specifications, features, variants, dimensions, and return policy.
Get one Target product by TCIN or URL: price, ratings breakdown, images, specifications, features, variants, dimensions and return policy. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | TCIN or product URL. e.g. 86216189 |
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 usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which also implies failed runs are not billed, and enumerates the returned data surface. It stops short of stating auth needs or error behavior for invalid TCINs.
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 tight sentences: the identifier and scope are front-loaded, followed by the payload and cost. No filler.
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, listing the returned fields (price, ratings, images, specs, features, variants, dimensions, return policy) is genuinely necessary and largely covers the gap. Authentication requirements and behavior on an unresolvable TCIN remain unspecified.
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 there is a single parameter already documented as 'TCIN or product URL. e.g. 86216189'. The description's 'by TCIN or URL' merely restates that, adding no format or validation detail.
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 and resource ('Get one Target product') plus the two accepted identifiers (TCIN or URL). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_target_products_search, 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?
Requiring a TCIN or URL implies the tool is a single-item lookup that typically follows a search, but the description never states when to use this versus run_target_products_search or what to do if you only have a product name. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.