add_inventory_itemAdd an owned object to Life Inventory. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | Client idempotency key (retries return original result). | |
| idempotency_key | No | Alias for request_id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | Inventory item record. | |
| message | No | ||
| inventory_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias for request_id.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Client idempotency key (retries return original result).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses the $0.10 cost and API-key requirement, which are useful operational constraints. It does not discuss duplicate handling or creation side effects, but the schema covers idempotency keys.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and cost/auth appended compactly. No filler or repetition.
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 create-style tool with an output schema and documented idempotency parameters, the description covers the main purpose and operational prerequisites. It could mention duplicate behavior or when to use update instead, but these lacks are minor.
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 67%, so the schema already explains request_id and idempotency_key. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; 'owned object' only weakly implies that name identifies the object being added.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an owned object to Life Inventory'), making the core function clear. It does not expressly contrast itself with sibling add_inventory_valuation, but the 'item' vs 'valuation' distinction is inferable from name and wording.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_inventory_item, archive_inventory_item, or add_inventory_valuation, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the API key requirement.
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.