get_shopRetrieve the current shop profile and details for a Fourthwall store. Use it to confirm shop context before managing products, orders, or collections.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns the current shop
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 usefully adds a non-obvious behavioral trait, the 100 req/10s per-shop rate limit, but says nothing about authentication needs or what the returned shop object contains.
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 with no padding, and the rate-limit constraint is front-loaded where a caller will see it. It is efficient, though the sparseness borders on underspecification rather than tightness.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter getter with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. With no output schema, though, nothing tells the agent what fields the shop object returns, which leaves a real gap for a tool whose whole job is returning an object.
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% for the single optional `account` parameter, and the schema text itself explains that it is a label, not an authorization proof. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (returns the current shop), which is clearer than a tautology like 'Get shop'. However, it does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as get_shop_contact, get_shop_stats-style tools, or list_accounts, so an agent must still infer scope from the name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling getters. The only guidance-adjacent content is the rate-limit note, which is operational rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.