Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_registry

Read-only

Retrieve a couple's wedding registry items with purchase status, requested and purchased quantities, fulfillment, availability, and inconsistency flags; paginate using limit and offset.

Instructions

View the couple's registry items with derived purchase state per item (requested_qty, purchased_qty, marked_fulfilled, availability, inconsistent). Paged via limit/offset.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return. Default 100
offsetNoItem offset. Default 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items to return. Default 100",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Item offset. Default 0",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine value by naming the derived fields (requested_qty, purchased_qty, marked_fulfilled, availability, inconsistent) and the paging mechanism, but it never explains what 'inconsistent' or 'availability' actually mean, which is the ambiguous part of a derived-state read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the field list is packed into a parenthetical rather than padded into prose. Slightly dense but nothing wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, naming the returned fields is a real contribution. However the derived-state semantics are left unexplained and there is no routing guidance among the many registry-adjacent siblings, so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema (limit default 100, offset default 0). The description's 'Paged via limit/offset' adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (View) and resource (couple's registry items), plus an enumeration of the derived state fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like add_registry_item/update_registry_item, but never names an alternative or mentions reconcile_registry, which also touches registry state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description merely states what the tool shows; an agent must guess whether this or search_registry_products, get_gift_tracker, or reconcile_registry is the right call for a given registry question.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools