List all registered e-commerce sites. Use this first to find a site by name (e.g. "Pronto Partners") and get its site_id, which is required by all other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sites | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the tool's role as a first step and that it returns site_id, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 description is two sentences long, both essential. It front-loads the core functionality and provides a concrete example, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given no parameters, simple behavior, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, and relation to other tools.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's output (site_id) and usage, meeting the baseline for 0 parameters.
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 states it lists all registered e-commerce sites and retrieves site_id, which is required by other tools. The verb 'list' and resource 'sites' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools (no other list tool for sites).
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 explicitly says to 'use this first' to find a site and get its site_id, which is needed by all other tools. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate cart management, checkout flow, payment steps, delegation, orders, and product operations. Potential overlaps like get_active_cart vs. get_cart are resolved by their specific use cases.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun_snake_case pattern (e.g., add_to_cart, set_shipping_address). There are no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
26 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive e-commerce server covering product discovery, cart management, checkout, payment, orders, and reviews. Could potentially be streamlined slightly, but still reasonable.
The tool set covers the full e-commerce lifecycle: site listing, product search/compare/reviews, cart CRUD, coupon application, shipping, checkout, payment with delegation and OTP, order retrieval, and back-in-stock alerts. No obvious gaps for typical buyer workflows.
