get_productRetrieve a product by its native product ID from a Fourthwall shop to support detail lookups, order processing, and collection management.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns product by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| product_id | Yes | Native productId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in annotations: a 100 req/10s per-shop rate limit with a link. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g. unknown id) or account scoping, so it is only moderately additive.
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?
Two short lines, front-loading the rate-limit caveat before the core statement. Nothing is padded, though the single-sentence return statement is terse enough that it verges on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 single-resource read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs beyond structured fields: the rate limit. Error/not-found behavior is the only notable omission, which is minor for a getter.
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 100%, so both parameters ('account' with its profile-label semantics and 'product_id' as a native id with a pattern constraint) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 ('Returns product by id') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_products, create_product, archive_product, and get_product_inventory. It does not, however, explicitly call out those siblings or scope (e.g. whether it returns offers/variants), so it stops short of the 5 tier.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_products or get_product_inventory, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that product_id must be a native id, or how 'account' scoping affects results). The rate-limit note is operational, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.