connect_storeCreate a link the merchant opens to connect another Shopify store. Use when they ask to add a store. The link works once within 10 minutes.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "connect_store"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the output is a link the merchant opens themselves, and it is single-use with a 10-minute expiry. It does not mention permission or scope requirements, but for a zero-parameter link generator the disclosed constraints are the ones that matter.
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?
Three short sentences: what it produces, when to use it, and the key constraint on the result. The constraint is stated before any elaboration and every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the critical expiry/single-use constraint. The only missing piece is how the link should be delivered to the merchant, which is a minor operational detail rather than something needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies and no parameter-level gaps exist.
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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a link that connects another Shopify store. An agent can distinguish this from listing or building stores, though it never names a sibling such as list_stores or start_store_builder to sharpen the boundary.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when they ask to add a store,' which maps a user intent directly onto the tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative for adjacent requests (e.g., inspecting an existing store), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.