get_shop_contactRetrieve current contact details for a Fourthwall shop profile. Provide the exact private shop profile label to fetch its stored contact information.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns the current shop contact info
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and a link to rate-limiting documentation, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
At two sentences, the description is tightly sized and front-loads the rate-limit caveat before the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the core purpose and rate-limit behavior. It does not explain when to choose this over sibling get_shop, but the remaining structured fields cover the invocation details adequately.
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, so the schema fully documents its semantics. The description adds no additional meaning or format details for the parameter, making the baseline score of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current shop contact info.' An agent can tell it retrieves contact information, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool get_shop, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. It only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.