get_collectionRetrieve a Fourthwall collection by ID or slug to view its products and metadata for shop management.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns a collection by its ID or slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| collection_id_or_slug | Yes | Native collectionIdOrSlug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) with a link, which is real behavioral context not present in structured fields. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown slug), keeping it from 5.
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 blocks with no waste, though the rate-limit notice precedes the purpose statement, so the core purpose is not strictly front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should convey the return shape, but it only says it returns 'a collection' without field or error details. Annotations and the 100% schema coverage handle the safety and input side, so this is adequate but with a clear gap on the return value.
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, and the description's 'by its ID or slug' merely restates the collection_id_or_slug semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('a collection') plus the lookup key (ID or slug), which distinguishes it from list_collections and get_collection_products. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-resource fetch versus list_collections for enumeration or get_collection_products for contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.