adjust_stock[demo: deshabilitada] Sets the absolute stock quantity for a product (inventory sync, no audit trail).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Must be 'set'. Absolute-set is the only mode available via MCP. | |
| quantity | Yes | New absolute stock quantity. | |
| productId | Yes | Product ID to update. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context: 'absolute' indicates overwriting, 'no audit trail' warns about lack of logging, and '[demo: deshabilitada]' signals availability. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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, information-dense sentence. Everything contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and caveats, with no redundancy. The demo note is appended compactly without disrupting clarity.
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?
The tool is simple, with only three required parameters and a well-documented schema plus safety annotations. The description adds the critical 'no audit trail' caveat and demo restriction. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but for this level of complexity the description is largely sufficient.
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% — every parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Sets the absolute stock quantity for a product' — a specific verb with a precise resource and scope. The parenthetical '(inventory sync, no audit trail)' further differentiates it from related tools like stock_load or bulk_price_update.
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 use for inventory sync and notes the lack of audit trail, which gives context on when it might be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use stock_load for incremental adjustments' or 'avoid when audit trail required'.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.