Shopify MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'recent orders' and 'checking individual order status', which implies read-only behavior and recency focus, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time window). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Get recent orders with details') followed by usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, and each sentence adds value—the first states what it does, the second suggests when to use it. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or limitations, but it's efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or return format. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain what 'details' include or the response structure, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the full context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (first, status, query) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get recent orders with details', which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('orders with details'). It distinguishes from siblings like shopify_sales_summary or shopify_custom_query by focusing specifically on orders rather than sales analytics or general queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., shopify_customer_metrics might also involve order data).

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful for checking individual order status and recent activity', suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like shopify_custom_query for more complex filtering or shopify_sales_summary for aggregated data. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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