Retrieve parts from Shopmonkey inventory with pagination and location filtering to manage stock efficiently.
List parts from Shopmonkey inventory. Supports pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of records to skip for pagination (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 25) | |
| locationId | No | Filter by location ID. Defaults to SHOPMONKEY_LOCATION_ID env var if set. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / pageRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Page number for pagination (default: 1)",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / skipAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Number of records to skip for pagination (default: 0)",
+ "type": "number"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'List parts' and 'Supports pagination' – it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects or return characteristics beyond pagination. The description adds little beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 purpose and then a note on pagination. It is appropriately concise and easy to scan, though it could optionally mention the location filter or default behavior for slightly more completeness without losing conciseness.
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 listing tool, the description is adequate: it states the resource and pagination. However, it does not mention the locationId filter (covered in schema) or any ordering/defaults, and there is no output schema to clarify return structure. Given its simplicity, the description is acceptable but could be more complete by noting that it returns a list of parts.
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%, with all three parameters (skip, limit, locationId) already described in the schema. The description's mention of pagination reinforces the skip/limit parameters but adds no new meaning. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (parts from Shopmonkey inventory). It also notes pagination support, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_inventory_tires or search_parts, though the distinction is somewhat implied.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_parts is for filtering or that list_inventory_tires is for tires. The only context is the pagination note, which is more about parameters than usage. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.