Add a product to this API key's inventory. Requires a verified account (sign in at https://app.recallkitchen.com with the signup email). Unverified signup keys cannot add inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | optional SKU or UPC | |
| name | Yes | product name | |
| brand | No | optional brand | |
| category | No | optional category |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sku | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| brand | Yes | ||
| category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context about the verified-account requirement and the failure condition for unverified keys. It does not repeat or contradict the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds a necessary usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 has only four flat parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers the key non-schema context—account verification—so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.
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%, so all four parameters already have meaningful schema descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), names the resource ('product'), and scopes it to 'this API key's inventory,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_inventory and remove_inventory_product. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 an explicit prerequisite: a verified account is required, and unverified signup keys cannot add inventory. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the auth requirement is clear and actionable 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.
Most tools have clear, distinct resource-action boundaries (inventory vs. watch patterns vs. notifications vs. search). The search tools overlap somewhat—especially search_product_recalls_by_upc, search_product_recalls_from_image, and search_recalls_by_identifier—but their input types and intent are described well enough to avoid major confusion.
The overwhelming majority follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_inventory_product, list_watch_patterns, revoke_api_key). Minor deviations like signup, list_inventory, and search_recalls_by_identifier (instead of search_product_recalls_by_identifier) keep it from being perfectly consistent.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly on the heavier side, but the count is justified by covering several distinct areas: account/key management, inventory, watch patterns, recall search, and notifications. Each tool appears to serve a real purpose, though a few search variants could arguably be consolidated.
The set covers the core lifecycle well: signup, key management, inventory and watch pattern add/list/remove, multiple recall search paths, recall detail lookup, and notification read state. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for inventory items or watch patterns and no bulk notification actions, but agents can work around these.