StoreRocket MCP by usefulapi

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: warns that the location appears live immediately unless visible=false, that creating twice makes two locations (consequence of non-idempotency, not just the hint flag), that geocoding is used when lat/lng are absent and may be inaccurate, and that the location:create permission is required. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a mutation.

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?

Front-loads the operation type and target, then layers in requirements, behavior, edge cases, and the permission/endpoint. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler, and it is dense but readable for a 26-parameter 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 could say what is returned (e.g. the new location id), which would help an agent chain into get_location or update_location. Otherwise it covers the mutation's side effects, prerequisites, and key parameter constraints thoroughly for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning on top by explaining why to supply lat/lng (precise pin vs. approximate geocoding) and the omit-or-all-seven-days constraint on hours. Required fields name and city are called out, though most of the 26 optional fields receive no mention in the description.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE: add a location to a project's store locator', giving a specific verb, resource, and mutation class. It is trivially distinguishable from sibling get_location, list_locations, and update_location, and the POST endpoint confirms the operation.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: set visible=false for coming-soon or draft locations, and call storerocket_list_locations before retrying after an error. It does not explicitly route the agent to storerocket_update_location when modifying an existing location, which is the one obvious sibling alternative left unaddressed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required location:read permission scope and the underlying HTTP route, plus the fact that the four include_* payloads are optional add-ons rather than defaults. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and optional expansions stated first and the permission/endpoint constraints trailing as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only fetch with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional payloads, auth scope and endpoint. The only meaningful omission is what happens for a nonexistent or unauthorized location id.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description, including the discovery path for project_id and location_id and the default-false behavior of the include flags. The description's list of optional payloads mirrors the schema without adding format, cost, or interaction detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One location by id') plus the optional expansions it can return (hours, filters, custom fields, calls to action), and pins it down with the endpoint GET /projects/{project_id}/locations/{location_id}. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_locations.

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?

'One location by id' signals the single-resource case versus listing, and the required permission is named. It does not explicitly route the agent to storerocket_list_locations when the id is unknown (that hint only lives in the schema field description), so it falls short of naming alternatives explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete response shape and the underlying endpoint (

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 front-loads resource identity and then lists returned fields with zero filler or redundancy.

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 usefully compensates by naming the four returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Minor gaps remain around error/auth behavior if the token is invalid.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is required by anchoring the lookup to the API token itself.

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?

Identifies the exact resource as the StoreRocket user tied to the current API token and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, email, company). It is clearly distinguishable from the location/project siblings, though the verb is only implicit via the 'GET /user' trailer.

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 phrase 'the API token belongs to' implicitly tells an agent this returns the authenticated user with no ID needed, which is a usable selection hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to any sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds what annotations cannot: the required location:read permission, the GET endpoint, the 25-per-page default, and which data is only present when include_* flags are set. It does not mention rate limits or error/empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and resource, then layers fields, pagination, filters, permission, and endpoint. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and noting the optional include_* expansions, which is exactly the missing return-shape information. Only pagination mechanics for next_page and failure modes are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including defaults, ranges, and all operator enums, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description restates the filter set and the 25-per-page default but adds no operator or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the locations of a project') plus the returned fields, pagination default, filterability, and the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from storerocket_get_location (single location) and storerocket_list_projects without opening either schema.

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?

Scope and precondition are explicit: filterable multi-location retrieval scoped to a project, requiring the location:read permission. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g., use storerocket_get_location for a single known location), so usage guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context on top: the authorization scope is the token's user, the endpoint is GET /projects, and location tools additionally require a Business-plan project. It doesn't discuss result size or error behavior for unauthorized projects, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what is returned, then the routing instruction and the plan caveat. No filler or restated name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers input (none), output fields, the authorization scope, the endpoint, and the downstream constraint on sibling calls. Nothing an agent needs before invoking or chaining it is missing.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words on what the returned id is used for, which is the semantically useful part for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the StoreRocket projects (store locators)') and scopes it to 'the token's user belongs to', then enumerates the returned fields (public id, name, location count, status, plan). An agent can distinguish it from the location siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit downstream usage ('Use the id as project_id in every location tool') and a prerequisite ('Location tools need a project on the Business plan (API access)'), which tells the agent both why and when to call this first. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases, so it lands just below the top mark.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) by stating that only sent fields change, that changes appear on the live locator immediately, that an invalid value saves nothing (atomicity), and that visible=false hides without deleting. It also distinguishes merge semantics (fields, calls_to_action) from replace semantics (filters), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the write/PATCH semantics before the field-level rules, and uses compact notation (hours:{mon:'09:00-17:00'}) efficiently. It is dense and close to overloaded for a single paragraph, but for a 29-parameter mutation little of it is expendable.

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?

Covers mutation semantics, permissions, atomic failure and clearing rules, which is what an agent needs to call this safely across 29 parameters. The main gap is that with no output schema, the description never says what a successful call returns, so an agent can't anticipate the response shape.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by consolidating the null-clearing model (phone/email/url/socials/cover), the hours day-level vs whole-schedule null distinction, and the merge-vs-replace contract for fields, calls_to_action and filters. Some of this restates the schema, and it doesn't explain the lat/lng-together rule carried only in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and update model: "WRITE: change selected fields of one location with a partial update (PATCH)". This cleanly separates it from the create/get/list siblings without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives actionable context: needs the location:update permission, and explicitly routes the hide-don't-delete case to visible=false. It does not, however, name storerocket_create_location or get_location as the alternative for other intents, so sibling routing is only partly covered.

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