Partle

add_inventory_item

Add an item to the caller's personal inventory.

Authenticated. Required OAuth scope: `inventory:write`.

One creation tool covers all lifecycle states — set ``status`` based
on the user's intent: "I bought" → ``owned``, "I want" → ``wanted``,
"I'm selling" → ``for_sale``. Either ``product_id`` (linked to an
existing Partle product) or ``name`` (freeform) must be set.

**Not idempotent** — each call creates a new row.

Args:
    name: Freeform name for items not yet linked to a Partle product.
        Either ``name`` or ``product_id`` must be set.
    product_id: Link to a canonical Partle product.
    status: Lifecycle. One of: ``owned``, ``wanted``, ``for_sale``,
        ``sold``, ``discarded``. Default ``owned``.
    quantity: How many. Fractional allowed. Default 1.
    notes: Freeform multi-line text — the dumping ground for anything
        not modeled as a column: extra URLs, comments, where stored,
        condition narrative, purpose, source, history, log entries.
        Markdown is fine. **Put extra URLs here, not in another field.**
    acquisition_price: What the user paid.
    acquisition_currency: Currency of acquisition_price.
    purchased_at: ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) when it was acquired.
    asking_price: When status=for_sale, asking price.
    asking_currency: Currency of asking_price.
    condition: Free string — typical: ``new``, ``like_new``,
        ``good``, ``fair``, ``poor``.
    external_link: **Primary** click-through URL only (source listing,
        vendor page, manufacturer page). Exactly one. Additional URLs
        go in ``notes`` as markdown links.
    external_id: Stable identifier from the source system, used as a
        **dedup key**. Per-user unique when set — same external_id
        can't appear twice for one user. Format is up to you (e.g.
        ``aliexpress:1005004714348221``, ``amazon:order/3024.../line/1``,
        content hash). Leave null for handwritten items.
    project: Tag for grouping (e.g. "kitchen-renovation").
    api_key: Optional API key (`pk_*`, generate at /account).
        Used when there is no OAuth token, and also when the OAuth
        token lacks the required scope — an explicitly passed key
        overrides an ambient token that is scoped too narrowly.
        An invalid or revoked token still fails regardless.

Returns:
    The newly-created inventory row (with embedded `product` if
    linked), or ``{"error": ...}`` on auth/validation failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`notes`	No
`status`	No	owned
`api_key`	No
`project`	No
`quantity`	No
`condition`	No
`product_id`	No
`external_id`	No
`asking_price`	No
`purchased_at`	No
`external_link`	No
`asking_currency`	No
`acquisition_price`	No
`acquisition_currency`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 13, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / contact

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Contact"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contact

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Contact"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / external_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "External Id"
+}

AddedMay 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Not idempotent — each call creates a new row.' It details required OAuth scope, the api_key override and failure semantics, the per-user unique dedup key for external_id, and the guidance to put extra URLs in notes. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and constraints. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: an overview paragraph, detailed Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence carries operational information—there is no filler. Markdown bolding highlights critical rules (e.g., '**Not idempotent**', '**Put extra URLs here, not in another field.**'). For a 15-parameter tool, this length is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (15 params, no output schema, no enums), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, authentication, parameter semantics, idempotency, dedup uniqueness, return value, and error behavior. The Returns section explicitly describes the success and failure formats, making the tool fully comprehensible without an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description meticulously defines every parameter: defaults, formats, constraints, examples, and cross-field rules. For instance, it explains status values with intent mapping, distinguishes external_link (exactly one primary URL) vs notes (extra URLs), and gives external_id format examples and dedup semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear and specific action: 'Add an item to the caller's personal inventory.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_inventory_item or delete_inventory_item. It also covers the two creation modes (product_id vs name) and all lifecycle statuses, leaving 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage context: it explains that one creation tool covers all lifecycle states, maps user intent to status values, and states the requirement that either product_id or name must be set. It also flags non-idempotency. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., update_inventory_item for edits), so it lacks the 'when not to use' dimension.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Partle tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

add_inventory_item

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources