create_stock_locationCreate an inventory location on a sheet.
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": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "create_stock_location"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| sheet_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether duplicate names are allowed, what happens on failure, or whether the location is created immediately or staged on a sheet, which is exactly the ambiguity "on a sheet" raises.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being front-loaded with the important information (what a location involves, what sheet_number means).
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?
For a mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell what a returned location looks like, whether the sheet must exist first, or how address vs. notes affect the created record.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — notes, address, and sheet_number (with its 1–10 bound) are never explained. Only the phrase "on a sheet" loosely hints at sheet_number, and the required name parameter is undocumented in both places.
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 verb+resource pair ("Create an inventory location") is specific and matches the tool name, but "on a sheet" is ambiguous — it could mean a spreadsheet sheet, a workspace sheet, or a stock sheet — and nothing distinguishes this tool from create_sheet or its own update_stock_location/delete_stock_location siblings.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_sheet, create_stock_movement, or list_stock_locations to check for existing locations. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving usage entirely to inference from the name.
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.