list_itemsRetrieve the facility's item catalog, showing product definitions packages are created against: name, category, and unit of measure.
List the facility's item catalog (the product definitions packages are created against): name, category, and unit of measure.
| 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?
The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description scopes the data to 'the facility's item catalog' while naming returned attributes. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the full catalog is always returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, includes a useful parenthetical clarification, and each part 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?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return shape by listing name, category, and unit of measure. A note on pagination or full-catalog behavior would make it fully complete, but the current level is adequate for this simple 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% for the single optional licenseNumber parameter, including the fallback to METRC_LICENSE_NUMBER. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the only parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the facility's item catalog' and clarifies what items are with 'product definitions packages are created against.' It also names the returned fields, and the tool is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_active_packages and get_package.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or conditional routing provided. The intended use is only implied by the description of what it lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.