Lists products with low stock based on reorder point or a custom threshold, helping identify items that need replenishment.
Productos con stock bajo (punto de reorden o umbral dado), en voseo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Cuántos mostrar; default 10, máximo 50 | |
| umbral | No | Avisar si quedan N o menos; default: punto de reorden del producto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It does not state that this is a read-only query, how results are ordered or truncated when more than the limit qualify, or what each returned product includes. The trailing 'en voseo' is a cryptic response-format note that adds no actionable 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 short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded. The trailing phrase 'en voseo' is unexplained noise in an otherwise tight definition.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the core filter adequately. It stops short of describing return contents or ordering, which an agent would need to interpret results without 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%, so both limit and umbral are already documented, including the reorder-point default. The description restates that same threshold/reorder-point semantics without adding formatting, interaction between limit and umbral, or defaults beyond the schema.
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?
Names a specific resource and filter: products whose stock is at or below a reorder point or a supplied threshold. An agent can distinguish it from stock_producto (single-product lookup) or buscar_producto, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
The condition for use is implied by 'stock bajo', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how it relates to stock_producto or buscar_producto, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.