Check stock levels or update inventory positions using verified receipts within a scoped chain lifecycle.
Inspect or advance stock positions through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| now | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| operation | No | list | |
| entity_ref | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| bundle_json | Yes | ||
| payload_json | No | {} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether 'advance' mutates data), prerequisites, authorization needs, or what 'verified receipts' implies. The agent cannot infer safety or mutation characteristics.
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 short and grammatically simple, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the operations, the meaning of the parameters, the output schema, or any business context, making it nearly useless for an agent to decide correct usage.
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 0% and the description does not mention any of the 7 parameters (project_id, bundle_json, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, payload_json). The agent has no clue what these parameters mean or how they relate to the described actions.
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 states a verb ('Inspect' or 'advance') and a resource ('stock positions'), but 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' are jargon without explanation, making the actual purpose unclear. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other company_* sibling tools, and the phrase 'stock positions' could apply to multiple domains.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without any routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.