shopify_searchSearch products, articles, blogs, and pages in one query; results are grouped by type for Shopify Admin lookup.
Unified search across products, articles, blogs, and pages. Runs parallel queries for each type and returns results grouped by type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per type | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| types | No | Types to search (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it runs parallel queries per type and returns results grouped by type, which tells the agent how output is structured for parsing.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded before the execution/return detail. 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states that results are grouped by type, which is the key return-shape fact. For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, this is nearly complete, though pagination behavior is unmentioned.
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 query, types, and limit are all documented in the schema. The description names the searchable types, loosely mapping to the types enum, but adds no format or default information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (search) and names the exact resource set (products, articles, blogs, pages), so the agent can tell this is a cross-type search tool. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the similarly-named sibling shopify_search_customers, which is excluded only implicitly by the type list.
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 word 'unified' implies use when a single cross-type lookup is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like shopify_search_customers or the per-type list/get tools, and no exclusions stated. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.