Switch to a named Shopify store by alias without disconnecting other stores. Pass the store alias on every call to direct operations to that store.
Resolve a named store without disconnecting other stores. Continue to pass the store alias on every call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond those: it says the operation does not disconnect other stores and that callers must keep passing the store alias, which clarifies the persistent-call contract. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and the critical usage rule are both present, and every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, annotation-rich tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the operation, the store alias input, and the call contract. The only notable gap is that, with no output schema, it does not state what the tool returns or how to detect success, but the simple scope makes this a minor omission.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'store' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the parameter is a store alias and that the alias is needed on every call, adding meaning that pure schema constraints (string, 1-64 chars) do not provide. It does not say what alias formats are accepted.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the resource ('a named store'), and notes it does so without disconnecting other stores, which clarifies its scoped behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like shopify_list_stores or shopify_get_shop_info, so it stops short of a 5.
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 instruction 'Continue to pass the store alias on every call' gives clear operational guidance for how to use the tool and confirms that the agent must keep supplying the alias. It implies the trigger (when a named store needs to be resolved) but does not name excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.