tool4seller-mcp

Inventory risk review

inventory_risk_review

Read-only

Reviews inventory risk with read-only inventory and inventory alert signals for one store. MCP reporting and workflow metric date ranges use yyyy-MM-dd and include both startDate and endDate, with at most 95 calendar days per range. For longer read-only reports, split into non-overlapping windows: endDate = startDate plus 94 days, capped at the requested end date; the next startDate is the previous endDate plus 1 day. Apply the same limit independently to comparison ranges. Do not average ratios such as ACOS or ROAS across windows; recompute them from summed base metrics. Do not automatically split advertising write plans or metric-based selectors; obtain a supported analysis window from the user. Keyword ranking trends have separate limits: DAILY supports up to 90 inclusive days and RAW up to 31 inclusive days. For keyword ranking trends, use these interval-specific limits when splitting read-only reports. This reporting limit does not apply to campaign scheduling dates.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`focus`	No	Optional focus such as sales, profit, ads, or inventory.
`endDate`	Yes	Business end date in yyyy-MM-dd format. The inclusive range can contain at most 95 days.
`storeId`	Yes	Store identifier, in sellerId:marketplaceId format.
`startDate`	Yes	Business start date in yyyy-MM-dd format. The inclusive range can contain at most 95 days.
`compareEndDate`	No	Optional comparison end date in yyyy-MM-dd format. The comparison range independently allows at most 95 inclusive days.
`compareStartDate`	No	Optional comparison start date in yyyy-MM-dd format. The comparison range independently allows at most 95 inclusive days.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No
`metrics`	No
`summary`	No
`evidence`	No
`findings`	No
`warnings`	No
`workflow`	No
`nextQueries`	No
`recommendedActions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral constraints on top: a hard 95-calendar-day cap per range, a prescribed window-splitting algorithm, and a warning not to average ratios across windows. However, several paragraphs (keyword ranking limits, advertising write plans) do not apply to this tool and dilute the disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded well, but the bulk of the text is generic boilerplate about keyword ranking trend limits and advertising write plans that is irrelevant to an inventory risk review. Every sentence is supposed to earn its place; here several paragraphs do not.

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 and full annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be explained. What remains missing is how the optional 'focus' value changes the review and why an agent would choose this tool over the raw query_inventory / query_inventory_alerts siblings — a real gap given a crowded sibling namespace.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the documented storeId/startDate/endDate/compare* semantics are already covered and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by specifying the exact non-overlapping split procedure (endDate = startDate + 94) and that the comparison range is limited independently. The 'focus' parameter is never mentioned in the description, leaving that gap unaddressed.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Reviews inventory risk') plus the scope ('for one store') and the signals consumed ('inventory and inventory alert signals'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the raw siblings query_inventory and query_inventory_alerts, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a 'review' that combines two signal sources suggests a synthesis tool rather than a raw query, and 'read-only' signals safety. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over query_inventory, query_inventory_alerts, or the diagnose_* tools, and no exclusions.

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

All tool4seller-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?