lemonsqueezy_get_storeGet a single store by id. API: GET /stores/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to sideload (JSON:API include=), e.g. 'store,variant'. | |
| store_id | Yes | Store id (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is correctly implied. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema (only mentions the API endpoint). It does not disclose error handling, pagination, or limits.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence directly states the purpose, making it easy for the agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
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 read tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately specifies the resource and identifier. The optional include parameter is mentioned in the schema. Missing explicit mention of the return type, but no output schema exists to compound the issue.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'by id' but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'store', and the identifier 'by id'. It is distinct from siblings like lemonsqueezy_list_stores which lists multiple stores, and from other get tools targeting different resources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_stores instead). No mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate or not.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (get vs list for each entity, plus specific write operations). Filtering parameters further distinguish list tools. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent `lemonsqueezy_action_resource` pattern using lowercase and underscores. Actions are consistently get, list, create, cancel, or update.
18 tools cover a broad set of resources (customers, orders, stores, subscriptions, discounts, license keys, prices, products, invoices, variants, checkouts) for a comprehensive e-commerce platform. Each tool earns its place.
While reading (list/get) is well-covered for most resources, creation and deletion are missing for many core entities (customers, products, orders, etc.), which may force agents to rely on external processes. Only subscriptions and checkouts have write support.