shoptet_get_price_listRetrieve all product variants from a Shoptet price list, including variant ID, name, code, price, and stock for pricing and inventory checks.
All variants of a product from its price list tab: variant id, name, code, price and stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, empty-price-list behavior, or size limits for large variant sets.
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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the field list; nothing is wasted. Slightly telegraphic, reading as a noun phrase rather than a full statement of action.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to list return fields. However, for a one-parameter lookup the only true input (product_id) is left unexplained, and nothing indicates whether results are limited or truncated.
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 0%, and the single product_id parameter has no prose explanation in either the schema or the description. 'All variants of a product' only indirectly implies that product_id identifies that product; no format or constraints are added.
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 resource (a product's variant price list) and enumerates the returned fields (variant id, name, code, price, stock), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling shoptet_get_product as the alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'from its price list tab' implies the context in which this applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus shoptet_get_product or shoptet_list_products, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.