Check a product's publication status across each Shopify sales channel, returning true/false and the publish date when published or scheduled.
Show whether a product is published on each sales channel (published true/false, with publishDate when published or scheduled).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Shopify product GID (e.g. gid://shopify/Product/123) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return semantics ('published true/false, with publishDate when published or scheduled'), which is genuine behavioral value. It does not state that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, nor anything about failure when the product ID is invalid or the product exists in no channel.
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 verb and resource, with the return shape packed into a parenthetical. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 with no output schema, the description usefully describes the return fields, filling the gap left by the absent output schema. It would be complete with a brief note on when a channel is omitted versus returned as false.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the Shopify GID format with an example. The description only refers to 'a product' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Show') plus a precise resource ('whether a product is published on each sales channel'), including the shape of the answer (published true/false, publishDate). This clearly separates it from the mutating siblings publish-product/unpublish-product and from get-publications. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 says what the tool returns but never states when to call it versus publish-product, unpublish-product, or get-publications, nor any prerequisite (e.g. requiring a product GID from get-products). Usage is only inferable from the read-style name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.