Skip to main content
Glama
sheypoor-mcp

sheypoor-mcp

by sepehr071

Shop details

sp_shop
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one internet shop or agency with its name, hours, group, agents, and current ads (excluding phone numbers) to support market research and ad analysis.

Instructions

Get one internet shop or agency: name, hours, group, its agents and its current ads.

Phone numbers are left out. Each ad has an id for sp_ad.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "sp_shop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesShop slug from sp_shops.
limitNoMax of the shop's ads.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, open-world read. Beyond them, the description discloses that only current ads are included and phone numbers are deliberately omitted, setting useful expectations about result scope and data exclusions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences front-load the operation and returned resource, then provide two high-value qualifications. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of annotations and parameter constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read with complete schema coverage, the definition supplies the resource scope, result contents, an important omission, and the downstream ad lookup. The enumerated fields mitigate the absence of an output schema, and detailed error behavior is not essential for correct selection or invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents both parameters, including the slug's source and pattern and the ad limit's default and bounds. The description adds general result scope through "current ads," but no parameter syntax or selection semantics beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource—"Get one internet shop or agency"—and enumerates the returned details. "One" distinguishes it from the collection-oriented sp_shops, while the ad-ID handoff distinguishes its shop-level role from sp_ad's individual-ad role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear retrieval context and an explicit next step: use an ad's `id` with sp_ad for ad-level work. It does not explicitly state when to use sp_shops for discovery instead, or other when-not conditions, so the guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.