Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fudge for Shopify

by ai.fudge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read work

read_work
Read-onlyIdempotent

With ref: one work item’s live state, progress, latest result, what it is waiting for, and draft or publication state with links; waitSeconds waits up to 50 seconds. With about (a URL, path, Shopify GID, theme file or fudge:// ref): what has changed there, by view current, history or summary. about: "fudge://store" is the store-wide timeline.

Tool call template

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": "read_work"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
refNoA work item to read: fudge://project/… or fudge://thread/….
fromNoWith view history: YYYY-MM-DD in store time, or an ISO timestamp.
viewNo
aboutNoStorefront URL/path, Shopify GID, theme file, fudge://discount/<key>, .projects/.plans path, or fudge://store for the whole store.
storeNoThe connected store to use. Omit when only one is connected.
cursorNo
waitSecondsNoWith ref: wait up to this long for running work to finish or need the merchant. Default 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: `waitSeconds` waits up to 50 seconds, the `ref` mode returns live state/progress/latest result/waiting/draft-publication links, and the `about` mode returns changes by view. It does not explain cursor pagination or failure behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the two core modes rather than burying them. It is dense with semicolons and clauses, but every sentence carries useful mode or parameter information, with no obvious filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description does a reasonable job of naming returned information for the `ref` and `about` modes. Still, with eight parameters and no required fields, it leaves `to`, `cursor`, and pagination semantics unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 63%, and the description meaningfully clarifies `ref`, `about` formats, `view` modes, and `waitSeconds` semantics. However, parameters such as `to` and `cursor` are not explained in the description, and `from` is only partly covered by the schema description, leaving real gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource, then immediately distinguishes its two operating modes: reading one work item via `ref` versus reading changes about a resource via `about`. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit mode-selection guidance: use `ref` for one work item's live state, `about` for what changed at a URL/path/GID/theme file/fudge ref, and `fudge://store` for the store-wide timeline. It does not name sibling alternatives such as `list_work` or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Fudge for Shopify toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources