get_j3_skin_settingsRetrieve Journal3 skin settings from your OpenCart store, filtered by setting name pattern (SQL LIKE) and skin ID, to inspect or audit theme configuration.
Get Journal3 skin settings. Filter by setting_name pattern (SQL LIKE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | ||
| skin_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is the key safety signal, but there is no mention of permissions, whether skin_id missing means 'all skins', or any pagination/rate behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the filtering rule. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and this is a low-complexity read tool. However, the undocumented skin_id parameter and absent usage context leave the definition only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'pattern' filters by setting_name using SQL LIKE semantics, which is genuinely useful, but 'skin_id' (default 1) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 (Get) and resource (Journal3 skin settings), which clearly separates it from the sibling get_j3_settings (global settings) and the update_j3_skin_setting mutation. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?
No indication of when to use this versus get_j3_settings, get_settings, or the update_* variants, and no prerequisites mentioned. The only guidance is implicit in the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.