inventory_locationsEvery location with how many items it holds and their value at the moving average. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "inventory_locations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that: the valuation is computed at the moving average, and the call carries no cost ('Free'). It does not say whether archived locations are included.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the return contents first, with no filler. The trailing 'Free' is terse but informative.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, and no output schema exists to explain return shape. The unaddressed include_archived flag and the lack of any routing to sibling inventory tools are the remaining gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions include_archived, so the agent gets no signal from prose about what toggling it does. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 identifies the resource (locations) and the fields returned (item counts and moving-average valuation), which is more specific than the title 'List locations'. It is distinguishable from inventory_list_items, though the listing verb itself is only implied.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus inventory_list_items, inventory_report, or inventory_save_location. The single word 'Free' hints at cost, but no usage context or prerequisites are given.
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.