warehouse_documentsRetrieve and list stock documents such as deliveries and internal-use records, with pagination and optional cache bypass to refresh results.
Stock documents such as deliveries and internal use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to carry the safety profile. It adds content scope by naming example document types, but it does not explain pagination, the meaning of fresh/cache skipping, or what the response contains.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than fully informative conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and a simple paginated list shape, the description should at least signal that this is a listing endpoint and how it relates to warehouse_document. It gives content examples but leaves the operation and sibling distinction unclear.
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 page, per_page, and fresh are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, which fits the baseline of 3 when 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?
The description names the resource and gives examples ('deliveries and internal use'), but it contains no verb or operation. An agent cannot tell whether this lists, searches, or retrieves documents, and it does not distinguish the tool from sibling warehouse_document.
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, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose instead. The presence of warehouse_document, warehouses, and warehouse_details makes this omission especially costly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.