product_getRetrieve product details and per-channel external identifiers using a SKU. Get the canonical product data needed to manage listings across Korean e-commerce platforms.
Read the canonical product and its per-channel external identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the return content (canonical product and per-channel external identifiers) but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like authorization requirements or rate limits.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It contains no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly scannable.
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 parameter, no nested objects), annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and return content. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that doesn't undermine completeness for this straightforward read tool.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'sku' parameter. It doesn't mention what sku stands for, its format, or how it relates to the product, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.
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 uses a specific verb 'read' and a specific resource 'canonical product and its per-channel external identifiers', making it clear this is a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like product_update, product_delete, and product_publish by focusing on reading rather than mutating or publishing.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any other tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.