Retrieve details for a specific App Store custom product page by its page ID. Use it to inspect page configuration, localization, or status before updating or analyzing experiments.
Get details for a specific custom product page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | The custom product page ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what 'details' comprises, whether the page must exist, or what happens on an unknown pageId.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity edges into under-specification rather than clean conciseness.
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?
A simple read tool with one documented parameter and a full annotation safety profile, so the bar is low. However, with no output schema, the description could have stated what 'details' are returned; that omission leaves a real gap an agent would want answered.
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?
Single parameter pageId with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no format hints, ID syntax, or source for obtaining the pageId, so it lands at the baseline for full-coverage schemas.
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 (Get) and resource (custom product page), with 'specific' signalling single-item retrieval by identifier, which distinguishes it from list_custom_product_pages and create/update_custom_product_page siblings. It never names those siblings, but the verb/resource pairing is 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of the obvious alternative (list_custom_product_pages) for browsing. The agent must infer from the name that this is the single-record fetch versus the list variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.