products_getRetrieve a single product record from the products dataset using its SKU, returning fields such as title, description, price, and stock.
Fetch a single record from products (5 records; fields: sku, title, description, price, stock) by sku.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds scale (5 records) and the exact fields returned, but says nothing about behavior when a sku does not exist or any auth/lookup constraints.
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; the parenthetical field list arguably earns its place by telling the agent the record shape. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.
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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the dataset size, the field set, and the key — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the not-found/error behavior.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It identifies sku as the lookup key, which is genuine added value, but gives no format, casing, or example, and does not clarify the required-only single-parameter contract.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single record from products') plus the lookup key ('by sku'), so the operation is unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is only implicit from 'single record' versus the names products_list/products_search; no sibling is named.
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?
The 'by sku' condition implies when this tool applies (known-key lookup) versus enumerating or searching, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is referenced. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.