Skip to main content
Glama

Ergora Specialists

by io.github.ergoracloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ergora Ecommerce Specialist

ergora_ecommerce
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask the Ergora Ecommerce specialist (Shopify, WooCommerce and DTC, conversion, retention, email and SMS). Returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base of practitioners, books and research.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoOptional. The user's email. Unlocks the free tier (30 queries a day instead of 5 anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call.
queryYesThe question or topic to research (natural language).
top_kNoHow many insights to return (1-10).
subscribeNoOptional. Set true only if the user explicitly asks for Ergora updates by email. Sends one confirmation link to that address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / subscribe
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Set true only if the user explicitly asks for Ergora updates by email. Sends one confirmation link to that address.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The user's email — unlocks the free tier (30 queries/day vs 5/day anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call."New value: +"Optional. The user's email. Unlocks the free tier (30 queries a day instead of 5 anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description earns some credit for disclosing that output is summarised and cited from a curated knowledge base, but it omits the free-tier/rate-limit behaviour that only the schema mentions and says nothing about latency or result freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool is and its scope, the second states the return contract. Zero filler or restated boilerplate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only knowledge-base query tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain scope and return format adequately. It falls short only on routing against sibling specialists and on the tier/quota context that an agent would want before prompting the user for an email.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents email (free-tier unlock), query, top_k and subscribe. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (ask the specialist), the resource (Ergora Ecommerce), and the topical scope (Shopify, WooCommerce, DTC, conversion, retention, email/SMS) plus the return type (summarised, cited insights). The domain scope distinguishes it from most siblings, but against the near-identical 'Ergora <domain> Specialist' family it relies on the domain keyword alone rather than an explicit contrast with a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the topical scope: use it for ecommerce questions. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance (e.g. versus ergora_ask or ergora_list_specialists), which is a real gap in a family of 19 near-synonymous specialist tools.

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

All Ergora Specialists toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources