Kash.click

Add an article

plu_add

Add a new item/article to the shop catalog. Requires a title. Optional fields include price, department (deptID), VAT rate (vatID), barcode, stock, variations, and many more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`price`	No	Selling price
`stock`	No	Current stock quantity
`title`	No	Product display name
`vatID`	No	VAT rate ID for takeaway/standard sales
`deptID`	No	Parent department ID
`unitID`	No	Unit of measure ID (e.g. kg, litre)
`weight`	No	Product weight
`barcode`	No	Product barcode (EAN, QR, etc.)
`calories`	No	Calorie count
`position`	No	Display position/order on keyboard
`shopHide`	No	1 to hide from online shop, 0 to show
`needPrepa`	No	1 if product requires kitchen preparation
`discountID`	No	Default discount ID applied to this product
`eatinvatID`	No	VAT rate ID for eat-in sales
`internalID`	No	Internal reference or SKU
`shortTitle`	No	Short label shown on receipt or keyboard
`stockAlert`	No	Low-stock alert threshold
`supplierID`	No	Supplier ID
`buyingPrice`	No	Cost/buying price (for margin calculation)
`description`	No	Full product description
`prepaLength`	No	Estimated preparation time in minutes
`activityCode`	No	Accounting activity code
`keyboardHide`	No	1 to hide from POS keyboard, 0 to show
`variationID0`	No	Variation type ID for slot 0
`variationID1`	No	Variation type ID for slot 1
`variationID2`	No	Variation type ID for slot 2
`variationID3`	No	Variation type ID for slot 3
`variationID4`	No	Variation type ID for slot 4
`consumptionDate`	No	Expiry/consumption date

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not destructive (destructiveHint: false) and not idempotent. The description adds 'add a new item' which is consistent but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as potential duplicate handling or permission needs.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and required field, the second lists example optionals. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 29 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief and does not cover return values, error scenarios, or common usage patterns. More context is needed for a tool with such complexity.

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%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description lists example optional fields but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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' and the resource 'a new item/article to the shop catalog', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plu_edit or plu_delete. The verb and resource are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools (e.g., dept_add, client_add) or versus plu_edit. It only mentions a prerequisite (requires a title) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

All Kash.click 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.

Tool Count4/5

41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.

Resources

Need Help?