get_product_by_idRetrieve a product's complete details by providing its numeric ID. Solves the need to access specific product information from the e-commerce catalog.
Fetch a product's details using its unique ID(number).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| sku | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| price | Yes | ||
| quantity | Yes | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('fetch') but does not mention error handling (e.g., behavior when ID not found), permissions, or response format. For a simple getter this may be acceptable, but it adds no context beyond the operation itself.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, output schema present), the description states the core operation. However, it lacks usage context and error behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations. It is minimally complete but not thorough beyond the essential purpose.
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 schema already defines the id parameter as an integer greater than zero. The description's 'ID(number)' essentially restates the schema type and adds minimal semantic value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying what the ID refers to (e.g., product SKU or database ID) or any uniqueness constraints, but it does not.
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 clearly states the tool fetches product details by unique numeric ID. It is a specific read operation that is distinct from the sibling tools (add_product, delete_product, update_product, add_product_smartly), which are all write operations. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'product details' are unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The intended use is implied by the read-only nature, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving it to the agent to infer based solely on the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.