Check if a product is currently available. Uses Shopify Storefront API to verify real-time stock status. Use when a customer asks 'is MIRA in stock?' or before recommending a product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product name or SKU to check availability for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it uses the Shopify Storefront API for real-time verification, which is helpful but not essential beyond the annotations.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It could mention the return type (e.g., boolean or stock level), but the current context is adequate.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the parameter. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool checks product availability, with a specific verb ('Check if a product is currently available') and resource ('inventory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_compatibility' and 'recommend' by focusing on stock status.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('when a customer asks 'is MIRA in stock?' or before recommending a product'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is clear overlap between 'recommend' and the deprecated 'skincare_recommend', and 'shop' as a routing tool could be ambiguous with 'search_products' and 'recommend'. Descriptions help but are not fully disambiguating.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., check_inventory, compare_products), while others are single words (shop) or use a noun prefix (skincare_cart, skincare_recommend). The deprecated duplicate 'skincare_recommend' further disrupts consistency.
14 tools is well within the 3-15 range and covers the necessary functions for a skincare commerce server: product lookup, search, recommendation, comparison, compatibility, inventory, checkout, deals, research notes, and issue reporting. No excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core commerce workflows: browsing, product details, recommendations, checkout, deals, and compatibility checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., order history or user profile management) but are outside the apparent scope. The deprecated duplicate is a minor inefficiency.