Check a given store's catalog capacity and account store limits—standard 50 items/5 stores or Large Store 500 items/Store Fleet 50.
Inspect store catalog capacity (standard 50 items vs Large Store 500 items) and account store limit (standard 5 vs Store Fleet 50 stores).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_id | No | Optional store ID to check catalog limits |
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 behavioral burden; "Inspect" implies a safe read operation, but that is inference rather than disclosure. It does add genuine behavioral value by enumerating the tier thresholds, which tells the agent what values to expect. It omits auth requirements, whether results are cached, and what happens when store_id is omitted (account-level vs store-level).
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?
One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the primary capability and parenthetically carrying the exact numeric thresholds. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.
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 read-only lookup with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the two quantities returned and their tier values. The remaining gap is the no-argument behavior, which is left ambiguous.
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% for the single optional store_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds indirect meaning by distinguishing per-store catalog capacity from the account-wide store limit, which hints at how store_id scopes the result, but it never mentions the parameter explicitly.
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 ("Inspect") and resource ("store catalog capacity" and "account store limit"), and goes further by naming the concrete values for each tier (50 vs 500 items, 5 vs 50 stores). An agent immediately knows this is a read-only limits lookup. It does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as checkout_large_store_tier or checkout_store_fleet_tier, which is the only gap.
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 says what information is returned but never states when to call this tool, what prerequisite state is needed, or how it relates to the tier-checkout siblings. The likely use case (checking current limits before upgrading) must be inferred entirely by the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.