Marks an item as purchased and removes it from a Bring! shopping list using the list UUID and item name.
Mark an item as purchased/completed and remove it from the shopping list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_name | Yes | Name of the item to mark as completed | |
| list_uuid | Yes | UUID of the shopping list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the item is both marked completed and removed from the list. However, it says nothing about whether the action is reversible, whether it errors if the item is absent, or what permissions are needed.
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?
A single compact sentence with the mutation and its side effect front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though there is very little content overall.
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 two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema, the description covers the essential effect. It still omits return behavior and failure modes, which matters slightly more here because no annotations or output schema exist to cover them.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the names. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('mark as purchased/completed') and resource ('item'), and discloses the side effect of removal from the list. It is not fully distinguished from the sibling bring_remove_item, which likely also removes an item, leaving the agent to infer the difference between 'complete' and 'remove'.
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 guidance on when to use this versus bring_remove_item or bring_add_item, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid list_uuid from bring_get_lists. The agent must guess which sibling implements 'remove from list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.