Fetch the current weekly action plan for the merchant: a ranked list of typed actions (publish opportunity, retire stale bundle, reorder inventory, investigate drift, etc.) the merchant should take this week. Use this when a merchant asks 'what should I work on this week?', 'what's on my plate?', 'show me my weekly plan', or wants a summary of pending tasks before opening the admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only fetch action and describes the output as a ranked, typed action list. It does not discuss authentication, errors, or freshness details, but for a zero-parameter read tool the behavioral profile is sufficiently transparent.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines what the tool returns, and the second gives concrete invocation triggers. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 simple, zero-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description fully explains what the agent gets (a ranked list of typed actions) and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no further parameter detail is required.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('current weekly action plan'), then elaborates with a ranked list of typed actions. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like execute_weekly_plan_action or get_opportunities.
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 provides explicit user-phrase triggers ('what should I work on this week?', 'what's on my plate?', 'show me my weekly plan') and a concrete scenario (summary before opening the admin). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.
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.
Tools map largely one-to-one to distinct actions, and descriptions explicitly differentiate similar-looking pairs like get_recommendations vs. get_bundle_for_cart vs. find_substitutes. However, score_cross_sell vs. analyze_basket and get_rationale vs. explain_opportunity could still confuse an agent, since both score/explain overlapping concepts. Overall ambiguity is low but not zero.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieval, explain_* for drill-downs, score_* for validations, and action verbs for state changes. No camelCase or mixed conventions are present, making the naming highly predictable.
19 tools is on the heavy side for a single server and exceeds the typical 3–15 range, even though most tools have distinct purposes. The large count reflects a broad feature set covering recommendations, alerts, forecasting, reorder, returns, and weekly planning, but a few tools could be consolidated. It feels slightly bloated rather than egregiously so.
The surface covers the main discovery–evaluation–action workflow: recommend, score, explain, triage, plan, and forecast. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct tool for creating or editing a bundle outside of weekly-plan actions, and no catalog-browsing capability—but those are largely external concerns. The workflow is coherent with no major dead ends.