growwer_get_catalogue_mediaRetrieves full details for a single catalogue media, including prices, metrics, and conditions, so you can evaluate or recommend an order with accurate information.
Use this when you need the full details of one media of the catalogue, such as its prices, metrics and conditions, before estimating or recommending an order on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The media. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (prices, metrics, conditions), which is the main behavioral question an agent has here; it stops short of noting auth requirements or error cases.
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, no redundancy, and the trigger condition is front-loaded. Slightly long for the amount of information delivered, 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the call returns and why an agent would make it. Missing only disambiguation against the other media-detail siblings.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or where it would come from (e.g. a prior list/search call).
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 names a specific verb and resource ('the full details of one media of the catalogue') and enumerates the content categories returned (prices, metrics, conditions). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like growwer_get_seller_media or growwer_search_project_medias, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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?
It gives a concrete use condition: fetch full detail before estimating or recommending an order, which implicitly points at growwer_estimate_order as the downstream tool. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives for the seller-side media lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.