booqable_list_locationsList pickup/return locations (warehouses, stores) with address and pickup/delivery capability. Location ids are needed for availability checks and orders. Booqable: GET /api/4/locations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Default 1. | |
| archived | No | true = only archived, false = only active. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page, 1-100 (Booqable default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /api/4/locations) and notes the downstream dependency on location ids, which is modest extra context. It does not mention pagination behavior or result volume, though page/page_size in the schema mitigate that.
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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by usage context and the API mapping. The endpoint sentence is marginally redundant for an MCP agent but is short enough not to distract.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description indicates the shape of returned data (address, pickup/delivery capability) and why the ids matter. Pagination semantics are not restated, but the schema already covers them, so the definition is adequate for a simple read-only list tool.
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 page, page_size, and archived are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (pickup/return locations), then qualifies it with concrete examples (warehouses, stores) and the fields returned (address, pickup/delivery capability). No sibling tool lists locations, so the agent can identify this unambiguously.
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 explains downstream context - 'Location ids are needed for availability checks and orders' - which tells the agent when this tool is a prerequisite. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, but there are no location-listing siblings to disambiguate against.
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.