Fetch one Shopify collection by store domain and handle to get its title, description, image, product count, and timestamps.
Get one Shopify collection by store domain and handle: title, description, image, product count and timestamps. 5 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Collection handle or URL. e.g. mens | |
| store_domain | Yes | Store domain. e.g. gymshark.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (title, description, image, product count, timestamps) and a cost signal ('5 point per returned record'), which is useful, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior on a missing handle, or whether the lookup is read-only.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the returned payload. Every clause carries information, though the trailing '5 point per returned record' phrasing is slightly awkward.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and noting cost, but it omits failure modes, auth context, and how the single record is scoped. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only that the collection is identified 'by store domain and handle', which mildly reinforces the schema (which actually allows a handle or URL) without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (one Shopify collection), and specifies the retrieval keys (store domain and handle). It clearly distinguishes fetching a single collection from product-listing siblings, though it never names run_shopify_collections_products as the alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over run_shopify_collections_products or run_shopify_products_search; usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.