Retrieve all Loyverse stores in one call, filter by store UUIDs, or include soft-deleted locations when auditing.
List all stores. The stores endpoint does not support pagination — all stores are returned at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_ids | No | Comma-separated store UUIDs to filter | |
| show_deleted | No | Include soft-deleted stores (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: the endpoint does not support pagination and returns all stores at once. However, it does not mention other traits like default filtering behavior or rate limits, so with annotations already covering the mutation hint, this is moderately transparent.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follow with critical implementation detail. No extraneous information.
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 list tool with full schema coverage for two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation and a key behavioral note (no pagination). However, it lacks guidance on filtering behavior or when to use filters, which would be helpful given the sibling tools.
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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level details, but since the schema already handles this, the 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stores'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_store' (single store retrieval), but the plural 'stores' and 'List all' imply bulk listing, which is a reasonable distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_store' (single store) or when to filter using 'store_ids' or 'show_deleted'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.