operations-partsReads bounded parts stock, technician exposure, and transaction metadata for the authenticated workspace without exposing amounts, item pricing, or private notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum inventory, transactions, and technician balances to return. | |
| technician_id | No | Optional same-business technician ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the bounded nature of the result and explicitly stating what is not exposed (amounts, item pricing, private notes). This goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 well-structured sentence with no filler or repetition. It leads with the verb and resource, then scope, then exclusions. Every clause contributes meaning.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential data categories and privacy boundaries. It is slightly short of complete because it does not describe the response shape or how the optional technician_id affects the returned data, but these are minor gaps given the schema coverage.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents both limit and technician_id. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying a bounded result set; it does not introduce format details or relationships between the parameters.
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 ('Reads') and names the exact resources: bounded parts stock, technician exposure, and transaction metadata. It also scopes the operation to the authenticated workspace and contrasts it with what it does not expose, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search-inventory.
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 no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, and it does not mention any sibling tool or exclusion condition. Usage is only vaguely implied by the word 'Reads'; there is no contextual direction such as 'use this for bounded operational data, search-inventory for full inventory details.'
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.