get_productFetch full product details by ID or SKU, including a variations summary for variable products, so you can inspect pricing and attributes before making changes.
Full product by id or SKU, including variations summary for variable products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| sku | No |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond that — that the payload includes a variations summary for variable products — but says nothing about not-found behavior, auth, or what "full" excludes.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the lookup keys are front-loaded. It is slightly over-dense given how much the phrase "variations summary" has to carry, 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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should resolve the id-vs-SKU contract and the not-found case; it resolves neither. It does at least hint at the return shape for variable products, which keeps it from being inadequate, but an agent could still call it incorrectly by supplying both keys or neither.
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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare integers/strings with no descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely signals that id and sku are alternative lookup keys — it never says whether one is required, whether both may be supplied, or which takes precedence, which is exactly the ambiguity created by a schema with zero required fields.
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 ("Full product") and states the two lookup keys (id or SKU), which clearly separates it from the sibling list_products. It falls short of a 5 only because it never explicitly names list_products as the alternative for browsing.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the single-record fetch when it already has an id or SKU. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance on which sibling to pick when the identifier is unknown, so the guidance is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.