Identify catalogue tables, assemblies, and kits that use a specific part number, helping trace where that part appears in ePER parts data.
List the catalogue tables where a part number is used, and assemblies/kits that contain it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for descriptions: ISO code (ja, en, it, de, ...) or ePER code. Default ja; falls back to English. | |
| limit | No | ||
| catalogue | No | ||
| part_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether results are limited by default.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It has no wasted text, though it could be structured with a brief usage note.
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 four-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain result shape, pagination, catalogue filtering, or language fallback behavior.
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 only 25%, and the description adds meaning only for part_number. The catalogue, limit, and lang parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving important filtering and localization behavior unclear.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: lists catalogue tables and assemblies/kits where a part number is used. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_table_parts or get_part.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose implies a reverse-lookup use case, but the agent must infer that without explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.