get_stockRetrieve the current stock level for a single product by its SKU before reporting inventory counts, so answers stay grounded in real data instead of guesses.
Get the current stock of one product by SKU. Always use this before telling a user how much stock there is — never guess.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | Product SKU, e.g. EPP-CASCO |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the useful behavioral rule that stock must be fetched rather than inferred, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown SKU or what the returned value looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, then the operating rule. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value expectations, and it leaves the response shape (a raw quantity vs. a stock object) and missing-SKU behavior unspecified. For a single-parameter read tool this is adequate but not complete.
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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics fully (SKU with an example, EPP-CASCO). The description only restates 'by SKU' and adds no format or lookup nuance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get the current stock') and narrows scope to 'one product by SKU', which cleanly separates it from sibling listing tools like list_products and list_low_stock. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
'Always use this before telling a user how much stock there is — never guess' gives an explicit when-to-use trigger plus a prohibition, which is stronger than typical usage guidance. It does not, however, mention alternatives (e.g. use list_low_stock when you need many products at once), so it stops short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.