Apple Store MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_product

Fetch Apple Store product details by part number, slug, or URL, including price, availability, description, images, and specifications for a selected country and language.

Instructions

Read product details from an Apple Store product page by part number, slug, or URL, including price, availability, description, images and specifications where available.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fresh`	No	Bypass the process cache and request current shop data.
`country`	No	Storefront country code, e.g. us, de, fr, ch, be. Use list_storefronts for supported values.	us
`language`	No	Shop language; defaults to the country's main language. Switzerland: de/fr; Belgium: fr/nl; Canada: en/fr.
`reference`	Yes	Product part number, slug (e.g. iphone-17), or HTTPS Apple Store product URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cache`	No
`found`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`country`	No	us
`product`	Yes
`language`	No	en
`retailer`	Yes
`reference`	Yes
`observed_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose that fields are only returned 'where available', warning of partial data, and 'Read' implies a safe non-mutating call. It does not cover caching behavior (the schema's 'fresh' param hints at this but the description never explains staleness), error behavior for unknown part numbers, or URL constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and accepted identifier types stated first, followed by the returned fields. No filler, no repetition of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are fully described in the schema. The remaining gap is that the multi-storefront behavior (country/language interplay) and the choice between this and explore_product are not addressed in the description itself.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (fresh, country, language, reference) are already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description reinforces that reference accepts a part number, slug, or URL but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own 'iphone-17' example and maxLength constraint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('product details from an Apple Store product page') and enumerates the payload (price, availability, description, images, specifications), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling 'explore_product', leaving the boundary to be inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the accepted reference types (part number, slug, or URL), which tells an agent what it needs to call the tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over explore_product, search_products, or the check_* siblings, and no stated failure conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server