Read the authenticated supplier's SupplySlate profile and current catalog-item count. Requires a supplier API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplier | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior is already reflected in annotations, and the description adds useful context about required authentication and the inclusion of a catalog-item count. There is no annotation contradiction or hidden side effect.
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 first states the read behavior, the second states the auth requirement. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?
With zero parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema already present, the description fills the remaining context gap by noting the authenticated nature of the request and the exact data being read. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is naturally complete. The description adds value by explaining that the supplier identity comes from the API key rather than from a parameter, which is the only parameter-related ambiguity that could exist.
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 the verb 'Read' and names the resources: the authenticated supplier's SupplySlate profile and the current catalog-item count. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_supplier by emphasizing 'authenticated supplier' rather than a general supplier lookup.
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 one relevant prerequisite ('Requires a supplier API key') and implies the intended context of an authenticated supplier session. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_supplier or get_supplier_offers, so selection guidance is mostly inferred.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.