Retrieve all items from a specified Bring! shopping list, including items to purchase and recently purchased items. Provide the list UUID to fetch its contents.
Get all items from a specific Bring! shopping list. Returns items to purchase and recently purchased items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_uuid | Yes | UUID of the shopping list. Use bring_get_lists to find the UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that results include recently purchased items alongside pending ones, which is real behavioral value, but it omits ordering, pagination, and whether deleted/completed history is bounded.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds only a genuinely informative scope detail.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is fetched and roughly what comes back. A brief note on ordering or volume would make it fully complete.
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 a single required parameter whose schema entry already explains where to obtain the UUID and points to bring_get_lists. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get all items from a specific Bring! shopping list') and clarifies scope by noting it covers both to-purchase and recently purchased items. Sibling differentiation is only implicit through naming (bring_get_lists returns lists), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the read-oriented wording and the sibling names, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The routing hint ('Use bring_get_lists to find the UUID') lives in the input schema rather than the description, so the description contributes nothing on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.