Retrieve a Shopify store's configuration—name, plan, currencies, features, payment and tax settings, and contact details—to verify setup and support admin decisions.
Get shop configuration including name, plan, currencies, features, payment settings, tax config, and contact info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the field list conveys roughly what comes back, but it says nothing about sensitivity of the returned data (payment settings, contact info), permission requirements, or whether currency/tax values are shop-default vs resolved.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the payload. No filler, no redundancy.
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's enumeration of return fields is doing the necessary work of telling the agent what it will receive. For a zero-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; only the sensitivity/permission angle is left implicit.
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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is trivially complete.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('shop configuration') and enumerates the contents: name, plan, currencies, features, payment settings, tax config, contact info. No sibling tool covers shop-level configuration, so it is effectively differentiated, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus other read tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The zero-parameter shape and the uniqueness of the shop-config resource make usage somewhat self-evident, but the description itself offers no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.