get_storeRetrieve current store details such as ID, slug, and b2c_url, the storefront origin used to resolve variant relative links.
Get information about the current store (id, slug, b2c_url). b2c_url is the storefront origin a variant's relative_link_url is resolved against — list_variant_links already does that join. Operation: GetStore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety; the description extends this by listing the returned fields and explaining b2c_url semantics. It does not cover error behavior or what 'current' means, but the annotation lowers the burden and this context adds real value.
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?
The first two sentences are tightly packed and front-loaded, but the trailing 'Operation: GetStore' is redundant filler that does not earn its place, slightly undermining the otherwise crisp structure.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the relationship to list_variant_links. It could clarify how the 'current' store is determined, but for a parameterless getter it is reasonably complete.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is complete. The description provides no parameter-specific meaning, but none is necessary; baseline 4 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?
The description clearly identifies a read-only fetch of the current store with specific fields (id, slug, b2c_url). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_store_feeds or get_current_user.
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 first sentence states the purpose, and the b2c_url note gives a concrete 'when not to use' by pointing out that list_variant_links already performs the join. It does not offer a full alternative comparison, but for a unique store getter it is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.