clover-mcp

list_items

Read-only

Search and paginate through inventory items using name or category filters to locate products.

Instructions

Return a page of inventory items. Filter by name (query) or category (category_id).

Requires INVENTORY_R. fields: optional list of field names to keep (narrows the response; cannot widen past the allowlist).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`fields`	No
`offset`	No
`category_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: the INVENTORY_R permission requirement and the constraint that the 'fields' parameter can only narrow (not widen) the response. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact at four sentences, front-loads the primary action, and avoids filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

As a read-only list endpoint with an output schema, the description adequately covers permission and filtering behavior. It could mention sorting or default ordering, but those are likely evident from the schema/output, making this sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With no schema descriptions (0% coverage), the description explains the non-obvious parameters: query, category_id, and fields (including the narrowing behavior). Limit and offset are left to standard pagination semantics, which is acceptable given their self-explanatory names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns a page of inventory items and supports filtering by name or category. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_low_stock_items or get_item.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for paginated, filtered listing of inventory items but does not explicitly explain when to use it over alternatives such as list_low_stock_items or get_item. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server