Retrieves a Salla store's custom JavaScript for a theme version, letting you inspect existing code before editing. Use it to verify code and check the version's custom_js_enabled flag.
Read the store's custom JavaScript for store 123456789. Whether it is enabled is the version's custom_js_enabled flag in the Salla MCP's theme_versions_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | No | Theme version ID (from theme_versions_list). Defaults to 987654321. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add one genuinely useful fact beyond the schema: the enabled status is NOT returned here but lives in theme_versions_list. It does not mention permissions, behavior when no custom JS exists, or what the returned content looks like.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the one genuinely non-obvious fact. The hardcoded store ID is wasted, misleading specificity rather than 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential split: JS content comes from here, enabled state comes from theme_versions_list. Missing only edge-case behavior (no JS configured, invalid version_id) and any hint about return shape.
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% and the single version_id parameter is already documented with its source and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about version_id and instead hardcodes store 123456789, which risks confusing the agent about what is actually parameterized.
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 and resource: 'Read the store's custom JavaScript'. This clearly separates it from custom_js_update and custom_js_toggle by action type, but it never names those siblings or scopes the read (whole store vs a specific theme version), despite the tool taking a version_id.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated — a 'read' verb signals inspection, and the second sentence usefully tells the agent to consult theme_versions_list for the enabled state. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to custom_js_update/toggle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.