get_shopRetrieve an Old School RuneScape shop's owner, location, and inventory details, including each item's price, currency, stock, and restock time.
Use for what a shop sells: owner, location, and each item's price, currency, stock and restock time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Shop name | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous answer, to continue a long list |
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral value is disclosing data freshness details (restock time) and that results are per-item; it says nothing about pagination limits or error behavior for an unknown shop name.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the trigger phrase comes first and the returned fields are listed compactly. Every clause earns its place.
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 usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and annotations cover safety. It falls just short of complete because pagination behavior (cursor-driven long lists) and behavior on a nonexistent shop are left entirely to the schema.
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 both parameters (name, cursor) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as name-matching rules (exact vs fuzzy) or what the cursor continuation returns.
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 states a specific resource and enumerates the exact payload (owner, location, item price, currency, stock, restock time), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_item or get_price. However it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is achieved by field listing rather than explicit contrast. It is clear but not sibling-routing.
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?
"Use for what a shop sells" gives an implied trigger condition, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_item for a single item across shops, get_price for pricing only). An agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.