Retrieve detailed information for a specific Kroger department using its 2-character department ID, obtained from the department list.
Get detailed information about a specific department.
| 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 disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether this is a safe read, what happens for an invalid or nonexistent department ID (error vs empty), or any permission/auth requirements; only the implicit 'Get' signals read-only behavior.
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 zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in schema. What is missing is disambiguation from the several sibling department/location tools and any behavioral notes in the absence of annotations.
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 single parameter fully documents its format (2-character ID) and how to obtain it. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for a one-parameter tool.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific department'), which is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like list_departments (which would return summaries for all departments) or check_department_exists, nor does it say what 'detailed' includes.
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 tool versus list_departments or check_department_exists. The only routing hint ('Get one from list_departments') lives in the parameter schema, not the description, and it explains ID sourcing rather than tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.