Retrieve a store's product collections, including product counts and per-channel sync status, to audit categories and check channel consistency. Read-only.
List a store's product collections (categories/groups), each with its product count and per-channel sync status. Read-only.
[#1d7020]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | ||
| store_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. It does add useful return-shape context (product count, per-channel sync status), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or scope 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?
The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing '[#1d7020]' artifact is stray noise that should not be in a tool description. The content is otherwise tight.
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 and 0% parameter documentation, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, but omits the workspace parameter and any pagination or scoping behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies the store scope ('a store's') matching the required store_uuid, but the workspace parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the params undocumented in both places.
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 (list) and resource (a store's product collections) and clarifies what the entries are (categories/groups). It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_collection sibling, but never names it, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given despite siblings like get_collection, browse_catalog, and sync_collection overlapping this space. The agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.