Retrieve all Printify shops connected to your account, including their unique IDs. Use these IDs to reference specific stores when managing products, orders, or shipping.
The shops connected to this Printify account, with their ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the return content, not the operation's behavior. It does not mention read-only safety, authentication, pagination, failure modes, or response format beyond the mention of ids.
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 a single short sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the essential information about what the tool returns. It could be slightly more polished with an explicit verb, but it is economically written.
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 operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the scope ('connected to this Printify account') and the key return field ('ids'). It omits deeper behavioral or formatting details, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this simple tool.
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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter documentation is not required. The description's mention of 'ids' gives a useful hint about the response shape, and there is nothing left unclear about invocation arguments.
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 identifies the resource ('shops connected to this Printify account') and the payload ('their ids'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on products, orders, shipping, and uploads. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so it is slightly less direct than an imperative description.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as printify_list_products or printify_list_orders. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.