The latest public agent-readiness report for a scanned store: every check with its status (pass/partial/fail) across access & crawlability, structured data and catalog pillars, plus score, grade and report link. Same visibility as the public web report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Store hostname or URL, e.g. shop.example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful context: the report is public (same visibility as the web report) and describes the returned data structure. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise yet information-dense, covering the object, scope, contents, and access level without unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has one required parameter, a read-only operation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (check statuses, score, grade, link) and its public nature. This is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.
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 input schema already covers the single 'host' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for schema coverage being high (100%).
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 retrieves the latest public agent-readiness report for a scanned store, specifying the report's contents (checks, statuses, pillars, score, grade, link). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_agent_ready_stores (listing stores) and check_merchant_readiness (likely initiating/checking readiness).
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 implies usage for a specific scanned store's latest report ('scanned store' suggests prerequisite), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned by name, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: one checks a specific merchant's readiness score, one retrieves the detailed report for a scanned store, and one lists agent-ready stores. Even though the first two both relate to a single store, their descriptions clearly differentiate between a quick score check and a full report.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_merchant_readiness, get_readiness_report, list_agent_ready_stores. The verbs (check, get, list) are appropriate and consistently formatted.
With 3 tools, the server is at the lower end of the typical well-scoped range but still reasonable for a read-only query surface. It covers the core actions of checking a store, getting a report, and listing stores, though slightly more tools could round out the functionality.
The server lacks a tool to initiate a new audit/scan, which is a significant gap given the 'audit' name. Additionally, there is no way to list all scanned stores (only those that are agent-ready), limiting visibility into non-ready stores. These are notable missing operations that could cause agent failures when trying to audit a new store.
