ecwid_get_categoryGet a single category by id, including its name, parent, product ids, and images. Ecwid REST: GET /categories/{categoryId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | Yes | Category id. |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's REST GET path is consistent with that. The description adds the returned fields but does not disclose error behavior or any rate-limit or authorization details; annotations carry the safety context so a 3 is appropriate.
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 short sentences, front-loads the core action and scope, and includes the REST endpoint for additional precision. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy with the schema.
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 single-resource fetch with one required parameter, the description covers what is returned, the endpoint, and the read-only nature through annotations. No output schema exists, but the listed fields give sufficient expectation of the response shape.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, category_id, is already described as 'Category id.' The description reinforces that the ID is the path parameter but adds no substantive semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a single category by ID and lists what is included (name, parent, product ids, images). It distinguishes itself from list_categories by emphasizing 'single category by id' rather than a collection.
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 implies the tool is for fetching one category when its ID is known, which is clear enough context for selection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like ecwid_list_categories, but the singular scope is self-evident and no misleading guidance is present.
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 resource-action pair (e.g., get by ID vs. search/list, adjust inventory vs. update order). The prefix `ecwid_` plus verb-noun structure makes boundaries clear, and no two tools appear to perform the same task.
All tools follow the `ecwid_<verb>_<resource>` pattern with verbs like get, list, search, adjust, update. The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific API covering products, categories, customers, orders, coupons, and store profile. Each tool has a clear purpose and the set is well-scoped without redundancy.
The set covers read operations well but lacks create/update/delete for most resources (products, categories, customers, coupons). Only inventory adjustment and order status update are provided as mutations, leaving significant gaps in lifecycle management that an agent would likely need.