get_memberFetch a shop member by native ID to view membership details. Provide the member ID and optional private shop profile label.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Gets a member by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Native id | |
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. |
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 the rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and a link to the rate-limiting guide, which is real behavioral context not present in structured fields.
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 lines: the rate limit is front-loaded and the purpose follows immediately. No waste and nothing buried, though the rate-limit note is slightly noise for a single-item read.
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?
A simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile. The description is adequate for its complexity; the only omission is guidance versus the sibling list_members.
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 the schema already documents both 'id' (the native id with its pattern/length constraints) and 'account'. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: 'Gets a member by id'. That is unambiguous about what the tool returns and how it is keyed. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_members, which is the main remaining gap.
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 guidance on when to use this versus list_members or any other member-related sibling, and no stated prerequisites. The phrase 'by id' weakly implies you need a known id, but the agent gets no explicit routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.