MaxGaming MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_product

Retrieve MaxGaming product details by URL or article number, including specifications, images, variants, and availability; returns found=false when the product is missing or 404.

Instructions

Read product details from a MaxGaming product page by URL or article number, including description, images, specifications, variants and availability. Returns found=false for a 404 or missing product.

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. Defaults to us (International).	us
`language`	No	Shop language; defaults to the country's language. MaxGaming uses one language per storefront.
`reference`	Yes	Exact product URL or numeric article number from MaxGaming.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the failure mode ('Returns found=false for a 404 or missing product'), which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the read has side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload, then the edge case. No filler or repetition; sizing is well matched to a simple read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description supplies scope plus the not-found behavior. The only missing element for an agent is routing guidance versus siblings, which is a notable but single gap.

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, including defaults and the enum for country. The description only echoes that reference accepts a URL or article number, adding little beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read product details') and resource ('MaxGaming product page') plus the fields returned (description, images, specifications, variants, availability) and how the product is identified (URL or article number). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_products or browse_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The requirement for an exact URL or article number is stated, which implies this tool is for known-product lookups rather than discovery, but the description never names an alternative (e.g., search_products) for when you lack a reference. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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

Deploy Server