CargoMind MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_reorder

Raise a purchase order to replenish a SKU at a warehouse, returning an existing open order instead of duplicating it when retried.

Instructions

Raise a purchase order to replenish a SKU at a warehouse. Safe to retry: if an open PO already exists for the line it is returned with duplicate=true instead of creating another.

Args:
    sku: SKU ID such as "SKU-107".
    warehouse_id: Warehouse ID ("WH-BLR"), code or city.
    qty: Units to order; 0 = automatic (tops stock up to 2x reorder point, min standard reorder qty).

Returns:
    {"status": "ok", "duplicate": bool, "purchase_order": {id, qty, supplier, expected_by, ...}, "message"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`qty`	No
`sku`	Yes
`warehouse_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotent/retry-safe behavior, the duplicate-detection contract, and the auto-quantity side effect (qty=0 tops stock to 2x reorder point, min standard reorder qty). It omits permission requirements and any downstream effects (supplier notification, inventory mutation), keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and the retry-safety guarantee, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns. The Returns block restates what the output schema already declares, which is mild redundancy, but nothing else is padded.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers action, idempotency, duplicate handling, and every parameter's semantics. An output schema exists, so the Returns summary is a bonus rather than a necessity, and no information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: sku format example, warehouse_id accepting ID/code/city, and detailed qty semantics including the default 0 = automatic behavior. This is meaningfully more than the bare integer/string types in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Raise a purchase order to replenish a SKU at a warehouse") with the scope of the action. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which create purchase orders; the closest siblings (check_inventory, list_shipments) are read operations on adjacent resources.

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 gives real usage context: it is safe to retry, and an existing open PO is returned with duplicate=true rather than double-ordering. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not-to-use or a competing alternative tool, but no sibling overlaps this action, so the routing gap is minor.

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

Deploy Server