Scan active external supplier links in a store and automatically unlist items with 404 or dead source URLs. Requires a store ID and costs 1 Auto-Credit.
Check all active external supplier/source links in a store and automatically unlist 404 or dead items. Consumes 1 Auto-Credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_id | Yes | The ID or slug of your store |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: it is a mutating tool that unlists items, and it costs 1 Auto-Credit. It does not state whether unlisting is reversible, what happens to items only temporarily down, or whether the operation is idempotent, but the side effect and cost are the highest-value disclosures and they are present.
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, front-loaded with the core action and its side effect, followed by the cost. No filler or repetition of the tool name; 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 mutating, credit-consuming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what happens and the cost, but omits reversibility of the unlisting, scale/rate considerations, and what the agent gets back. Adequate but with clear 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?
Only one parameter (store_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 names a specific verb (check), resource (active external supplier/source links in a store), and the resulting action (automatically unlist 404/dead items). An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as run_inventory_sweep or run_pricing_audit, which is the only missing piece.
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?
"Check all active external supplier/source links" implies the context (link hygiene auditing), and the credit cost hints at budgeting, but the description never states when to prefer this over other audit tools like run_inventory_sweep. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.