Retrieve tire inventory records with pagination and optional location filtering.
List tires 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it lists tires and supports pagination but does not explicitly confirm read-only side effects, result ordering, or error behavior. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about runtime implications.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences conveying the essential purpose and a key capability. No redundant or irrelevant information is present, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values or result structure. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., tire objects, total count, or next-page tokens). Without that context, the agent is left guessing about the output format, making the description incomplete for full contextual understanding.
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?
All three parameters (skip, limit, locationId) have descriptions in the schema, providing full coverage. The description itself does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for parameter clarity without enhancement.
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 tires') and the resource ('Shopmonkey inventory'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_inventory_parts. 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions pagination support but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_parts or list_inventory_parts). It does not state scenarios for using the locationId filter or any exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.