list_shelvesRetrieve the store's shelves, including each category's slug, name, blurb, product count, and licence model. Use a shelf slug to narrow product searches or recommendations.
The store's shelves (its categories), each with a slug, name, blurb, how many products it holds, and its licence model. Use a shelf slug to narrow search_products or recommend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is disclosing the returned fields (slug, name, blurb, product count, licence model), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say whether all shelves are returned or whether results are paginated, which would matter for a catalogue-wide listing.
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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines the resource and its return shape, the second states the follow-up use. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple zero-argument read tool.
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 trivial parameterless read call with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how to use it, which is most of what an agent needs. The only real omission is result-set behaviour (completeness or pagination of the shelf list).
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The mention of shelf slugs is about downstream tools' inputs, not this tool's arguments, and is correctly framed that way.
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?
Names the specific resource ('the store's shelves (its categories)') and enumerates what each entry contains: slug, name, blurb, product count, and licence model. The listing action is carried by the tool name rather than a verb in the description, but the resource is unmistakable and distinct from siblings like list_library or get_product.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the output: use a shelf slug to narrow search_products or recommend. That is clear workflow context tying this tool to two named siblings. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., when to prefer list_library or why one would browse shelves versus searching directly).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.