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.
Input schema / properties / category / enumAdded value: +[
+ "bad_result",
+ "tool_error",
+ "missing_capability",
+ "confusing_schema",
+ "docs",
+ "other"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false), so the description's added value is the authentication requirement and the verified-account gate — genuinely useful behavioral context not present in structured fields. It does not clarify the duplicate-SKU behavior implied by idempotentHint=true, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place by stating either what the tool does or the account state required to use it. 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the auth prerequisite is covered. The only meaningful gap is the behavior when the product already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=true; otherwise the description is sufficient 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% and all four parameters carry their own descriptions (sku, name, brand, category), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Add a product to this API key's inventory'), which cleanly distinguishes it from remove_inventory_product, list_inventory and check_tracked_products. It does not explicitly name a sibling or spell out the add-vs-watch boundary, but the action and scope are unambiguous.
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?
Provides a real prerequisite (requires a verified account, sign in with the signup email) and names the failure case ('Unverified signup keys cannot add inventory'), which is useful context. However it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over add_watch_pattern or lookup_product, and no exclusion rules.
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.