get_streaming_statusCheck streaming status across all services for a shop account, so AI agents can verify which services are live, offline, or unavailable.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns streaming status for all services
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds a useful operational detail: the rate limit of 100 requests per 10 seconds per shop. However, it does not disclose auth requirements or response shape beyond the one-line scope statement, so a 3 is appropriate given annotations carry most of the burden.
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 wasted words. The rate-limit note is front-loaded before the purpose statement, which is slightly less ideal for immediate purpose discovery but still acceptable and well-structured overall.
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?
The tool is simple and read-only, with rich annotations and full schema coverage. The description supplies rate-limit and scope context, and while no output schema exists, the one-line return statement is sufficient for a status getter. Nothing critical to invoking the tool correctly appears missing.
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 the single optional 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('streaming status for all services'). It clearly distinguishes itself from write siblings like start_streaming and end_streaming by being a getter, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 or alternatives are provided. The rate-limit note is operational, not usage guidance. An agent must infer from the tool name alone when to choose this over start_streaming or end_streaming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.