F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server exposing Shopify commerce backend with ~22 typed tools for orders, inventory, logistics, and fulfillment, including read/write separation and structured errors.
-
storelink-mcp
by jaredalonzo
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@storelink-mcpList all available stores"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP tools decision
Public Tools
server.py
list_store() > read only -- agent tool to determine which stores are available to access
raise_replenishment_order() > write -- provide the agent the capability to place orders on behalf of Korral
replenishment_order_status() > read only -- agent tool to determine the status of a placed order
sku_report() > read only -- agent tool to assess sku information, including supplier and lead time
Related MCP server: korral-mcp
Utility private functions (not agent tools)
server.py
sku_lead_time() > read only (private) -- utility tool for the sku_report public tool to determine how fast an order can be fulfilled.
stock_report(sku) > read only (private) -- compare what is in stock/on-hand vs recent post transactions for the sku
Observability
Package in observability/
1. Technical trace — for support / engineers
Structured JSON on the storelink_mcp.trace.technical logger, meant for
diagnosing issues as they happen:
Explicit MCP server version (
mcp_server.name+version) on every record.Correlation
trace_id(shared with the audit stream) and the MCPrequest_id.Tool name and business arguments (the audit-only
reasonis stripped out).Per-leg downstream spans — every StoreLink HTTP call with method, path, status, latency, and retry
attempts, taggedleg: "mcp<->storelink".On failure: the failing connection leg (
duvo<->mcpvsmcp<->storelink), the unwrapped root-cause error type/message (FastMCP wraps tool errors in aToolError; the originalStoreLinkAPIErroris surfaced withwrapped_by), and the full chained stack trace.
2. Audit trace — for buyers (non-technical stakeholders)
A readable line on the storelink_mcp.trace.audit logger:
A plain-English description of each step the agent took.
The agent's reasoning, captured via an optional
reasonargument added to every public tool (the model is instructed to always provide it).A buyer-friendly outcome — a summary of the result on success, or a calm "this step could not be completed" note on failure (never a stack trace).
A running
step_numberso the actions read in order.
Keys transactions
Each StoreLink API key (X-Korral-Store-Key) is scoped to one store id.
There are two scenarios to consider per the assessment brief: a) key rotates mid-flight and b) unknown store id is referenced.
-- For a, when a key is rotated while a request is in flight e.g. storelink api returns 40x errors, invalidate the currently stored key, reload with the newly rotated key, and retry (max 3).
-- For b, when a new or unknown store is provided, before making any request to the storelink API, inform the end user (buyer) that the store number referenced is not included in the available stores, provide them explicit written instructions to ask the Korral IT team to provision a key for the store provided.
Shipping
-- Where this runs: The MCP server will run in Korall's GCP instance via GCP Cloud Run where all the data is already internal/private. Assuming that StoreLink API also exists in the same GCP instance, all the data that comes into the MCP server is also internal/private.
-- How it gets there: The MCP server will be built as a docker image that Duvo maintains and ships out to Korral for verification before they deploy new builds/changes done by Duvo.
-- How secrets are handled: see Keys transactions section
Available Tools
4 toolslist_storeA
List the stores this account can access (id, name, address, timezone).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Short plain-English explanation of why you are calling this tool. Recorded on the buyer audit trail; does not affect the result. |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only mentions output fields, not side effects, auth needs, or limits. A score of 2 reflects minimal behavioral info.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could add more context like sorting/filtering, but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists returned fields. The single optional parameter is clear. Sibling tools are distinct. Mostly complete for a basic list tool.
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% and the reason parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter info, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists stores with specific fields (id, name, address, timezone). It distinguishes from sibling tools like raise_replenishment_order which are inventory-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies listing stores but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor any 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
raise_replenishment_orderA
Place a replenishment order for a SKU at a store, on behalf of Korral.
Returns the created order, including its order_id and status. This is a write action — confirm the quantity is intended before calling.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Stock-keeping unit identifier, e.g. 'sku_oat_milk'. | |
| note | No | Optional free-text note for the order. | |
| reason | No | Short plain-English explanation of why you are calling this tool. Recorded on the buyer audit trail; does not affect the result. | |
| quantity | Yes | Units to order; must be positive. | |
| store_id | Yes | StoreLink store identifier, e.g. 'store_123'. |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description correctly labels the tool as write action and warns about confirming quantity. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. It states return value partially (order_id, status) but no details on format. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and includes a necessary caution. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description identifies the action, return value, and caution. However, it does not mention preconditions like store or SKU existence, or what 'on behalf of Korral' means. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more context about the order creation process would be helpful.
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 already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'SKU' and 'store'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Place' and resource 'replenishment order', and defines scope (SKU, store). It clearly differentiates from siblings which are read-only or status-checking tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to create an order, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to siblings like replenishment_order_status or sku_report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
replenishment_order_statusA
Get the current status of a previously raised replenishment order.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Short plain-English explanation of why you are calling this tool. Recorded on the buyer audit trail; does not affect the result. | |
| order_id | Yes | Replenishment order identifier. | |
| store_id | Yes | StoreLink store identifier, e.g. 'store_123'. |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get the current status' without clarifying read-only nature, possible status values, or side effects. The lack of such detail reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no superfluous content.
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 simple read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the return format (what 'status' includes) and prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), which could be helpful for agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current status of a previously raised replenishment order'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like raise_replenishment_order (creates) and list_store (lists stores).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after raising an order but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sku_reportA
Consolidated reorder report for a SKU at a store.
Combines SKU details, current on-hand stock, recent POS demand, and the supplier's lead time so you can judge whether — and how urgently — to replenish. Use this before raising a replenishment order.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Stock-keeping unit identifier, e.g. 'sku_oat_milk'. | |
| reason | No | Short plain-English explanation of why you are calling this tool. Recorded on the buyer audit trail; does not affect the result. | |
| store_id | Yes | StoreLink store identifier, e.g. 'store_123'. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read-only report (no modification implied). However, it lacks details on permissions, data freshness, or any edge cases. The description is honest but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant or vague wording. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but present), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and when to use it. It covers the report's contents and context without needing to detail return values, which is covered by output schema.
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 well-described parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it produces a consolidated reorder report combining SKU details, stock, demand, and lead time. It differentiates from siblings like list_store, raise_replenishment_order, and replenishment_order_status by focusing on a specific pre-order analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this before raising a replenishment order,' providing a clear context for invocation. While it doesn't detail when not to use or list all alternatives, the sibling context implies its role, making the guidance adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
list_store - First observed
raise_replenishment_order - First observed
replenishment_order_status - First observed
sku_report
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing stores, generating a replenishment report, raising an order, and checking order status. No functional overlap, and descriptions clearly separate their purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use clear, descriptive names, but the pattern is not uniform: 'list_store' and 'raise_replenishment_order' follow verb_noun, while 'replenishment_order_status' and 'sku_report' are noun phrases. This minor inconsistency does not hinder understanding.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of store replenishment. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core replenishment workflow: viewing store info, assessing stock via the SKU report, placing an order, and checking its status. A tool to list past orders or cancel/update orders would improve coverage, but the current set is functional for basic tasks.
Maintenance
ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
- mcp-serverOAuthio.klokin
MCP server exposing klokin time-tracking operations (employees, time entries, stores) to AI clients.
MCP server for Product Management
MCP server for Modern Treasury — payment orders, transactions, counterparties and ledgers.
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that lets a Duvo agent talk to Korral's StoreLink API, enabling category buyers to offload daily stock checking, replenishment ordering, and order tracking tasks.-
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server exposing the StoreLink grocery stocking API as tools for category buyer workflows, including inventory checks and replenishment orders.5-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables operations teams to diagnose and recover stalled fulfillment orders via tools like retry_fulfillment and escalate_order, with safety boundaries limiting writes to retry and audit operations.-