List this API key's tracked inventory products. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | number of products to return | |
| query | No | optional inventory search | |
| offset | No | number of products to skip |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | ||
| products | Yes | ||
| nextOffset | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are scoped to 'this API key' and that an API key is required for auth, which is useful context but not extensive; it does not mention pagination, ordering, or list size behavior beyond what the schema's limit/offset defaults suggest.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the auth requirement is a single useful addition. Every word earns its place.
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 a complete output schema, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is listed and under whose scope. No critical calling information is missing; the output schema and annotations carry the remaining burden.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond framing the list as inventory products for the API key; the schema's 'optional inventory search' and pagination fields are sufficient.
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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('this API key's tracked inventory products'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also scopes the resource to the authenticated API key, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_api_keys or add_inventory_product without needing to open the schema.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to view the inventory products tracked by the current API key. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as check_tracked_products or lookup_product, so alternative selection is left to inference.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.
At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.
Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.