Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

shopify_bulk_operation_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Submit Shopify bulk-operation GraphQL queries to an async runner and receive an operation ID to poll status.

Instructions

Submit a Shopify bulk-operation query to the asynchronous job runner. Returns a bulk operation ID; poll via shopify.bulk_operation_status.

Args:
    query (required): Bulk-operation GraphQL query (Shopify bulk-operation syntax).
    project_id: Authenticated Project UUID.
    project_ref: Exact project correlation reference.
    connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias.
    idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity.
    effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it.
    approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
effectNo
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is asynchronous, returns only an operation ID, Spring verifies the claimed read/write effect, and a write resume requires an approval_ref. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The intro sentence front-loads the action and return contract, and the Args block gives each parameter a compact, meaningful explanation. No filler or repetition of schema titles.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values; it already states the returned bulk operation ID and polling path. It covers the async flow, project/connector identity, idempotency, effect verification, and approval needed for writes. The only gap is the query-required inconsistency and no explicit guidance on which other params are normally needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It gives one-line semantics for all 7 parameters, including the critical effect and approval_ref fields. However, it marks query as required while the schema lists no required params, creating a minor mismatch; and it doesn't specify allowed effect values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific action (Submit a Shopify bulk-operation query), names the exact resource (bulk-operation query to async job runner), and clarifies the async contract by saying it returns an operation ID to poll via shopify.bulk_operation_status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopify_bulk_operation_status and shopify_bulk_operation_result.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly sets the context: use this for asynchronous bulk-operation queries and then poll via shopify.bulk_operation_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the async submission vs. status/result workflow is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools