Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ustore-backoffice-mcp

ustore-backoffice-mcp

by tkuan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Describe a uStore endpoint

ustore_describe_endpoint

Inspect the full API contract for any uStore endpoint—parameters, request/response shapes—before making calls.

Instructions

Show the full contract for one operation: path/query/header parameters, request body shape, and response shape. Call this before ustore_call_endpoint.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ustore_describe_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoe.g. /api/Orders/{orderId}
methodNoRequired when path is ambiguous
operationIdNoAlternative to path+method

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation (showing the contract) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require permissions. It does add useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns and the required sequence, but lacks mention of error behavior or edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then give actionable guidance. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers what the tool returns and its recommended usage sequence. Missing mention of error behaviors or parameter ambiguity resolution, but given its simple role and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverageging. The description mentions the contract contents but doesn't add further semantic meaning to the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Show the full contract for one operation' and enumerates the contract's contents (path/query/header parameters, request body, response shape). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by tying it to ustore_call_endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly directs the agent to 'Call this before ustore_call_endpoint', providing a clear temporal use case. It doesn't discuss when not to use it or contrast with list_endpoints, but the core guidance is strong and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools