get_shopFull details of one Pinmade shop by its slug (the last part of its page address).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_shop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | e.g. 'kakimori' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description doesn't need to restate it. Beyond that it adds nothing behavioral — no mention of what happens with an unknown slug, whether the response is a single object, or any rate/permission considerations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading what is returned before the lookup key. It is efficient, though the single flat clause leaves no room for a usage hint that would have cost only a few more words.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, and 'full details' gives a rough sense of the return payload despite there being no output schema. It is still thin on edge cases — an agent gets no guidance on a missing or invalid slug, which is the main failure mode of a key-based lookup.
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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that the slug is 'the last part of its page address', which tells an agent how to derive the value from a URL rather than guess. The schema's own description only gives the example 'kakimori'.
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 names a specific resource ('one Pinmade shop') and the lookup key ('by its slug'), so an agent can tell this is a single-record fetch, not a listing. It stops short of naming search_shops or list_places as the alternatives, so the distinction from siblings is implied rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: you should call this when you already have a slug. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no statement that this is the wrong tool when you only have a name or partial text (which would point to search_shops), and no prerequisites or failure 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.