Retrieve complete product details by ID, including name, description, price, variations, images, attributes, and SEO data for use in WebCake storefront pages.
Get full product details by ID: name, description, price, variations, images, attributes, SEO, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is listing the returned fields. It adds useful detail about what data comes back but does not cover error behavior, permissions, or other operational traits.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then efficiently listing returned fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and contains no wasted text.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description supplies enough context. It gives a useful field list despite no output schema, though the 'etc.' leaves the return shape slightly open-ended.
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% and the only parameter is already documented as 'Product ID' in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no new syntax or format details beyond the structured field.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('get product') and explicitly scopes it to 'by ID', which distinguishes it from list_products and search_products. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 ID' implies the tool is for when the agent already has a product ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like list_products or search_products. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.