Skip to main content
Glama

FeedShine: Shopify Google Shopping Feed

Override attributes on many products

set_product_overrides
DestructiveIdempotent

Set DIFFERENT attribute overrides on many products in one call (up to 200). This is the tool for a real title pass: get_search_queries gives each product its own top query and the words missing from its title, so every product needs a different string and no feed mapping can express that. Omit feedId to write once for every feed, which is the default for a title pass. Name a feed only when that feed needs its own values (another language, say). Each entry's overrides REPLACE that product's override map on the chosen layer, exactly like set_product_override, so send every attribute that should stay. The preview lists the ones each entry would drop under removes. An omitted included keeps that product's current include state. Unknown product ids are skipped and reported, not fatal. This tool previews by default: called without confirm, it returns the proposed change and applies NOTHING. Show the merchant the proposal, then call again with confirm: true to apply. One regeneration is queued for the whole batch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feedIdNoFeed id from list_feeds. Omit to write the overrides every feed inherits.
confirmNoOmit or false to preview the whole batch. True applies it.
productsYesOne entry per product, up to 200 per call

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoPlain-language result or next step, safe to read out to the merchant.
countNoEntries in the previewed batch
scopeNoWhich override layer the call addressed: one feed's row, or the row every feed inherits
errorsNoReasons the save was refused
feedIdNoThe feed the batch was written against, on a feed-scoped call
appliedNoTrue when the change was saved
changesNoPer-product before and after, for the merchant to approve
previewNoTrue when this call only proposed the change
appliedCountNoProducts actually written on the confirm call
removesCountNoProducts whose entry drops overrides they hold today (each change lists them under removes)
outrankedCountNoProducts in a store-wide batch whose own feed row wins over this write
validationErrorsNoProblems that must be fixed before confirming
unknownProductIdsNoIds in the preview that match no product
skippedUnknownProductIdsNoIds skipped during the write because they match no product

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes much further: replacement semantics for the override map, the requirement to resend every attribute that should stay, the removes list in the preview, unknown ids skipped and reported without failing, and a preview-by-default workflow that applies nothing without confirm. It also discloses the batch regeneration side effect. Nothing here contradicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the batch scope, the title-pass use case, and feedId guidance come before the mechanics. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is longer than strictly necessary and could be split for scanability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return internals need not be described here. The description still covers the mutation contract, preview/confirm flow, batch limits, and non-fatal error handling, which is everything an agent needs to call this destructive, batch-scoped write safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: feedId omission writes the feed every feed inherits, confirm gates preview vs apply, and an omitted included preserves current state. This clarifies intent beyond the schema text, though the per-attribute specifics remain in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, batch scope (up to 200), and the key qualifier 'DIFFERENT' overrides, which separates it from the singular sibling set_product_override. An agent can identify it 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says this is 'the tool for a real title pass', explains why a feed mapping cannot substitute (each product needs a different string), and gives a clear rule for feedId: omit by default, name a feed only when that feed needs its own values. This is when-to-use, when-not, and alternative routing in one place.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources