Create a BOM or a new BOM revision with assemblies, catalog items, custom parts, services, consumables, artifacts, and interface dependencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| bom_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| build_quantity | No | ||
| source_artifact_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bom | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the useful nuance that it creates either a new BOM or a new BOM revision. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether passing bom_id updates an existing BOM, whether a revision is auto-created, or what happens when bom_id is omitted.
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 dense sentence with the action verb up front and no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the little information it provides, though that brevity contributes to the completeness gap.
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?
This is a complex mutation tool with 7 parameters, nested item schemas, several enums, and an output schema, yet all behavioral and usage guidance is compressed into one sentence. It does not clarify when to pass bom_id versus create a fresh revision, how source_artifact_id works, or how dependencies are structured, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only broadly maps to items and dependencies via content-type names. Key parameters such as bom_id, project_id, build_quantity, and source_artifact_id are left unexplained, as are important item subfields like line_number, quantity_per_assembly, and make_or_buy.
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 states a specific action ('Create a BOM or a new BOM revision') and names the supported content types: assemblies, catalog items, custom parts, services, consumables, artifacts, and interface dependencies. It is clearly distinct from the read-only get_bom sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with other BOM-related tools.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bom for reads or validate_project for validation. The only implied usage signal is the verb 'Create', so the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
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.