list_incoming_transfersRetrieve incoming transfer details for a facility, including manifest number, shipper, and package count. Use it to reconcile deliveries against manifests.
List incoming transfers for a facility: manifest number, shipper, and package count. Useful for reconciling deliveries against manifests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| licenseNumber | No | Facility license number. Omit to use METRC_LICENSE_NUMBER. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool returns and its purpose, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, license-number resolution, or error conditions.
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, front-loaded with the core action and valuable result details, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
This is a simple one-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema. The description covers the resource, scope, and representative returned fields. Additional behavioral details like pagination or sorting would improve completeness but are not strictly necessary to call it.
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?
The single parameter licenseNumber is fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond tying the transfer list to a facility, matching the baseline for covered parameters.
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 specific verb and resource ('List incoming transfers') and names the key fields returned (manifest number, shipper, package count). The word 'incoming' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_outgoing_transfers.
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 a clear use case: 'reconciling deliveries against manifests.' It does not explicitly contrast with list_outgoing_transfers or specify when not to use this tool, but the context is evident enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.