List this API key's tracked inventory products. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | number of products to return | |
| query | No | optional inventory search | |
| offset | No | number of products to skip |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | ||
| products | Yes | ||
| nextOffset | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: results are scoped to the current API key and an API key is required, which clarifies the authorization/context model. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the only additional statement is a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only operation with a fully documented input schema, explicit output schema, and safety-bearing annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing it from sibling read tools like check_tracked_products, but parameter and return details are covered by structured data.
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 limit, query, and offset are already fully documented with defaults, bounds, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.
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 precise action: 'List this API key's tracked inventory products.' The verb and resource are specific, and the API-key scoping makes the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to mutation tools like add_inventory_product and remove_inventory_product.
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 minimal guidance: it implies the tool is for listing tracked inventory and notes that an API key is required. It does not contrast with related read tools such as check_tracked_products or say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, leaving selection partly to inference.
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.