run_shopify_collectionsGet one Shopify collection by store domain and handle: title, description, image, product count and timestamps. 5 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Collection handle or URL. e.g. mens | |
| store_domain | Yes | Store domain. e.g. gymshark.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / collection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Collection handle or URL. e.g. e.g. mens"New value: +"Collection handle or URL. e.g. mens"Input schema / properties / store_domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"Store domain. e.g. e.g. gymshark.com"New value: +"Store domain. e.g. gymshark.com"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait — cost of '5 point per returned record' — which tells the agent this is a paid single-record lookup, but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing handle, auth, or rate limits.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its returned fields; the pricing note is appended efficiently. No filler.
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 two-param single-object fetch with no output schema, enumerating the fields returned (title, description, image, product count, timestamps) compensates well. The absence of any failure-mode or auth detail is the main remaining gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples. The description's 'by store domain and handle' merely restates the schema fields and adds no format or edge-case meaning.
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 and resource ('Get one Shopify collection') plus the two identifying inputs (store domain, handle). The singular 'one' distinguishes it from the plural/search siblings, though it never names run_shopify_collections_products explicitly.
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, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives such as run_shopify_collections_products or run_shopify_products_search. Usage is only implied by 'Get one' and the required identifiers.
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.