Skip to main content
Glama

List Purchase Items

list_purchase_items
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when working with RetailHardHat purchase_lists records in the connected organization. Read a site's purchase list. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "list_purchase_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
searchNo
siteIdYes
projectIdNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds approval-related context, but it is generic and does not clarify pagination, filtering behavior, or permissions beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the main action. The approval sentence is somewhat boilerplate and less useful for a read-only list operation, but overall it is not bloated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 5-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important input semantics such as pagination and filters unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description only implies that siteId is required by saying 'a site's purchase list' and does not explain projectId, search, limit, or offset, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear read/list operation on RetailHardHat purchase_lists records for a site, which is more specific than a tautology. It does not distinguish this from sibling list tools such as list_purchase_template_items or list_purchase_tracking_events.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives implied usage context: use when working with purchase_lists records and read a site's purchase list. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over related siblings or when not to use it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources