get_product_detailsRetrieve product information by SKU to verify item details before adding to cart, updating inventory, or handling support requests.
Get one product by SKU. Example: SKU-1001 (LumenLab Pro Headphones).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Alphanumeric product SKU (hyphens ok), e.g. SKU-1001 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing about behavior: no error/not-found handling for an invalid SKU, no permission or auth requirements, no note on whether the result is cached or live. For a zero-annotation tool this is a real gap, though the read-only lookup nature is implied by 'Get'.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and key before the example. Nothing is padded, though the example sentence is largely redundant with the schema and could be spent on distinguishing this tool from 'search'.
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 lookup with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description covers the essentials and needn't explain return values. It is still incomplete on not-found/error behavior and on when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' 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 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented by the schema; baseline is 3. The description's 'SKU-1001 (LumenLab Pro Headphones)' example merely repeats the schema's own 'e.g. SKU-1001' example and adds no new syntax or format meaning.
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+resource ('Get one product') and the lookup key ('by SKU'), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, which is the main ambiguity a caller would face.
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 phrase 'by SKU' implies the precondition that the caller already holds an exact SKU, which is an implicit usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing to 'search' for name or keyword lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.