Verify whether a Kroger department exists by checking a 2-character department ID, helping confirm valid departments before related actions.
Check if a department exists in the Kroger system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| department_id | Yes | 2-character department ID. Get one from list_departments. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / department_id / descriptionAdded value: +"2-character department ID. Get one from list_departments."Input schema / properties / department_id / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9]{2}$"Input schema / properties / department_id / titleRemoved value: -"Department Id"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but an existence check is inherently a read-only lookup and that is clear from the phrasing. It adds nothing about behavior on a nonexistent department, error/response shape, or whether the check is cached or authoritative.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though very spare given the tool's role in a multi-step workflow.
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?
A simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema and a fully documented parameter; the description plus structured data cover what an agent needs to invoke it. Only the semantics of a false/not-found result are left unstated.
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% and the schema states the 2-character pattern and where to obtain an ID, so the one parameter is fully documented. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.
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 (check existence) and resource (department in the Kroger system), which separates it from the sibling existence checks for locations and chains. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun does the distinguishing work.
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 only implied by the name and by the schema note to get an ID from list_departments. The description never states when to call this instead of list_departments or get_department_details, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining the ID first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.