Read a product variant's stock level at a specific Shopify location, including available, committed, or incoming states. Returns null when the variant isn't stocked there, not an error.
Read a variant's stock at one location. Returns null where the variant is not stocked there, which is not an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The variant and location to read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: a null return means the variant is not stocked at that location and is explicitly not an error, which prevents an agent from misinterpreting the response.
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 action and followed by the single most important edge case. No filler.
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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so for the key edge case (null = not stocked, not an error). The shape of a successful non-null response (which stock states come back) is left implicit, but the critical ambiguity is resolved.
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 schema documents the variant ID, location ID, and the stock-state names array in detail. The description's 'at one location' reinforces the locationId semantics but adds no syntax or format 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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope: reading a variant's stock level at a single location. This distinguishes it clearly from write-oriented siblings like shopify_inventory_adjust_quantities, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 word 'Read' implies a retrieval use case, and 'at one location' hints at the per-location granularity, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.