get_productFetch full Sunleaf product details by ID, including description, sizes, tags, price, and stock, to answer customer questions with cited data.
Full details for one Sunleaf product by its id (from search_products): description, sizes, tags, price and stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id, for example SL-HRB-001 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a single product's full details with specific fields, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as not-found handling or rate limits; given annotation coverage, this is adequate rather than exceptional.
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 front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, the id source, and the returned fields with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.
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?
For a simple one-parameter getter, the combination of description, full input schema, output schema, and safety annotations is complete. The description tells an agent exactly what will be returned, and nothing essential 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 input schema already documents id with type, minLength, and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the id comes from search_products and identifies a specific Sunleaf product, which helps an agent chain tools correctly.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Full details for one Sunleaf product by its id.' It also lists the contained fields and explicitly references search_products as the source of the id, so the tool is clearly distinguished from the search-style sibling tools.
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?
It gives clear usage context by saying the id comes from search_products, which routes an agent to first call search_products and then this tool. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use exclusions, but the intended workflow is evident and the sibling list is small enough to make the guidance safe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.