Retrieve a Lemon Squeezy store by ID to get its name, slug, currency, and sales statistics. Use this tool to access store details for reporting or management.
Get a specific store by ID, including name, slug, currency, and sales statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'products,discounts,license-keys,subscriptions,webhooks') | |
| storeId | Yes | The store ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the returned fields (name, slug, currency, sales statistics), providing value beyond annotations. No behavioral contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding.
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 get-by-id tool, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and key output fields. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing returned data. The 'include' parameter is covered in the schema, so no major 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It mentions output fields but not parameter specifics.
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 states the verb (Get), the resource (store), and specifies that it returns name, slug, currency, and sales statistics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ls_list_stores by focusing on a single store retrieval via ID.
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 description implies usage for fetching a single store by ID, which is distinct from listing all stores. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.