Retrieve a single product by UUID to view its full details, including pricing, SKU, and metadata. Use it when you need complete product information for a specific item.
Get a single product with full details — pricing, SKU, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; "Get" implies a safe read but nothing states read-only semantics, permission requirements, or behavior when the ID is unknown (not found vs error). It does disclose the shape of what comes back (pricing, SKU, metadata), which is real added context for a lookup.
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 sentence with no waste, payload detail front-loaded after the verb and resource. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it names the fields returned, which partially substitutes for the missing return schema. Only the absent not-found/permission behavior keeps it from a 5.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema coverage that already documents id as a Product UUID; the description adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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?
Specific verb (Get) plus resource (product) plus scope qualifier ("a single product") that distinguishes it from conduyt_list_products, and it previews the payload fields (pricing, SKU, metadata). It does not name the sibling alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Retrieval by ID is implied by the required identifier and the singular framing, but the description never says when to use this versus conduyt_list_products or conduyt_search, nor how to obtain the UUID in the first place. Usage is inferable, not instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.