get_store_infoShipping rates and free-shipping threshold, processing and delivery times, current offers, returns, payment and how ordering works at AVDEB.
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": "get_store_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is static policy content for a specific store with no inputs, but says nothing about whether offers/policies can be stale or how the info is scoped.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the highest-value topics (shipping rates, free-shipping threshold) and wastes no words. It is proportionate to a zero-parameter lookup tool.
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?
With no output schema, the description has to convey the return content, and it does so as a topic enumeration. It is nearly complete for a simple policy lookup, with only the response shape/format left implicit.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics carry no burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the input contract.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (shipping rates, free-shipping threshold, processing/delivery times, offers, returns, payment, ordering flow) and anchors it to the AVDEB store. It is content-specific rather than tautological, though it never names a verb or explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product or quote_order.
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: an agent can infer this is the tool for shipping/returns/payment questions while siblings handle products and quoting. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternative for overlapping questions such as shipping cost on a specific order.
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.