OrgLines

Add warranty item

add_warranty_item

Track a PURCHASE's warranty and auto-schedule an expiry reminder — so the owner knows whether a broken appliance is still under warranty. Provide 'title' (e.g. 'Чайник Philips HD9350') and 'purchase_date' (YYYY-MM-DD). Optional: 'warranty_months' (default 24 = EU statutory), 'receipt_id' (link the TZ-006 purchase receipt — get_warranty_item then returns its merchant/date/total), 'document_id' (link an uploaded warranty-card scan in the caller's documents), 'merchant' (free text when no receipt), 'price', 'currency' (default EUR), 'serial_masked' (LAST 4 chars only — never the full serial), 'notes', and 'reminder_offsets' (days-before-expiry to remind; default [30]). warranty_until is computed server-side (purchase_date + warranty_months). On create, one TZ-003 scheduled notification is materialized per still-future offset (server-side — it fires even with no agent running), tagged related={type:warranty,id:}. Additive; caller's own record and is written straight away; remove it with the matching delete tool. CONFIRMATION: this tool runs immediately when the caller asks for it — it writes only their own record, and they can undo it from this same surface, so the request is taken as the instruction. You get an ordinary result, not a plan_token. Everything destructive, outbound or financial still proposes and waits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "purchase_date": "<purchase_date>"
    },
    "name": "add_warranty_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`price`	No
`title`	Yes
`currency`	No
`merchant`	No
`receipt_id`	No
`document_id`	No
`purchase_date`	Yes
`serial_masked`	No
`warranty_months`	No
`reminder_offsets`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are thin (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not otherwise know: warranty_until is computed server-side, one TZ-003 notification is materialized per still-future offset and fires without an agent running, records are tagged related={type:warranty,id:<id>}, and the write is immediate and undoable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and required inputs are front-loaded and the parameter tour is dense with no filler. However it is one long paragraph, and the phrase 'Additive; caller's own record and is written straight away' is grammatically broken and partly restates the later confirmation block.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers inputs, side effects, timing and undo. The only gap is that it never says what the create call itself returns (id? computed warranty_until?), only what the companion get tool returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 0% schema coverage with 11 parameters, the description carries the full burden and does: it supplies formats (purchase_date YYYY-MM-DD), defaults (warranty_months 24 = EU statutory, currency EUR, reminder_offsets [30]), and a hard constraint ('serial_masked' LAST 4 chars only), plus examples for title.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Track a PURCHASE's warranty and auto-schedule an expiry reminder') plus the user-facing benefit, which immediately separates it from get_warranty_item, update_warranty_item, list_warranty_items and delete_warranty_item.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: removal goes to 'the matching delete tool', and linking a receipt_id is justified by what get_warranty_item will then return. The CONFIRMATION block also draws the line between immediate execution here and proposal-waiting for 'everything destructive, outbound or financial'.

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

All OrgLines tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?