TimeLib MCP

get_product

Fetches a single product by ID, returning its variants, options, prices, images, and tags. Ideal for retrieving complete product information.

Instructions

Get a single product by id, including variants, options, prices, images and tags.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Product id (prod_...).
`fields`	No	Comma-separated field selection, e.g. 'id,title,status,*variants'. Use to keep responses small.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (variants, options, prices, images, tags), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error behavior for non-existent ids, auth requirements, or pagination/nesting depth of the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence covers purpose and included data. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the action and subject.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple read-only single-record fetch with fully documented parameters and rich return content listed. The description covers the key retrieval scope. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from noting error/not-found behavior and whether variants/options are nested or flat.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions the included data which relates to fields, but doesn't add detail beyond the schema for the 'fields' parameter format examples or the meaning of the wildcard syntax beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get a single product by id'. Explicitly enumerates what's included (variants, options, prices, images, tags), distinguishing it from list_products and other product operations. The scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies single-record retrieval by id but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_products for bulk retrieval, nor mention when the 'fields' param is helpful for keeping responses small. Usage context is clear from the name and schema but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.