Retrieve a Shopify store's locations with paging, search, and sorting, excluding inactive ones by default. Filter results to include deactivated locations when needed.
List the store's locations. Inactive ones are excluded unless asked for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | No | Paging and filters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added claim (inactive locations excluded unless requested) merely restates the includeInactive schema field, and it omits pagination limits, cost behavior, or return shape.
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 immediately followed by the scoping caveat. No filler or 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and covering annotations, the definition is mostly adequate. With no output schema, however, nothing tells the agent what a returned location contains or how paging results are shaped, leaving a gap.
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%, and each parameter (after, first, query, reverse, includeInactive) is documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the store's locations') and states a filter scope, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings beyond the distinct resource name, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Inactive ones are excluded unless asked for' implies when the default behavior applies and hints at the includeInactive path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any prerequisite guidance, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.