ecwid_get_store_profileGet the store's profile — general info (store id, name, currency), company details, and settings. Ecwid REST: GET /profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature, and the description adds the REST endpoint 'GET /profile' and the categories of returned data. It does not add deeper behavioral details like authentication requirements or error cases, but for a simple zero-parameter getter, this is adequate.
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 with no filler: it states what the tool does, summarizes the returned content, and gives the API endpoint. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description provides enough high-level information about what is returned (general info, company details, settings) to guide an agent. It stops short of a detailed return structure, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The absence of parameters is already fully visible in the input schema, and the description focuses on output rather than needing to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('store profile'), and specifies the content ('general info (store id, name, currency), company details, and settings'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target products, orders, customers, categories, and coupons.
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 gives clear context: this is the tool to retrieve store-level profile and settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource is unique among siblings, so the usage intent is unambiguous.
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.