haus

add_shopping_list_item

Add an item to the household's shopping list. A brand-new item gets a category auto-assigned from its name. If an unbought item with a matching name already exists, its quantity is merged into that item instead of creating a duplicate, keeping the existing item's category unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The name of the item to add, e.g. 'Milk' or 'Paper towels'. Maximum 200 characters. For a brand-new item, a category is auto-assigned from the name. If an unbought item with a matching name is already on the list, its quantity is increased instead of creating a duplicate entry, and the existing item keeps its current category unchanged.
`quantity`	No	How many of the item to add. Defaults to 1 if omitted. Minimum 1, maximum 9999. When merged into an existing unbought item, this is added to the existing quantity (capped at 9999).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important side effects: auto-assigning a category for new items, merging quantities into existing unbought items, and preserving the existing item's category. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 sentences, dense with relevant information, no redundancy. The most important actions (add, merge, auto-category) are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple write operation with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (new vs. existing items, category preservation). No significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'quantity' fully described including merge and limit details. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is maintained.

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 the action ('Add an item') and the resource ('the household's shopping list'), and elaborates on key behaviors like auto-categorization and quantity merging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_add_shopping_list_items and buy_shopping_list_item.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating it adds an item to the household shopping list, implying it is for single-item additions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like batch_add_shopping_list_items for multiple items, but the purpose is sufficiently clear. No exclusions are given, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

All haus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?