Audit attached variants against their option matrix and manufacturing baseline. Detect mismatches before production or inventory updates in inFlow Inventory.
Audit every attached variant against its option matrix and manufacturing baseline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locationId | No | ||
| maxVariants | No | ||
| productGroupId | Yes | ||
| includeInactive | No | ||
| baselineProductId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/validation operation but doesn't state whether it mutates data, what happens when variants fail the audit, whether rate limits or pagination apply (the maxVariants param hints at scale), or what auth is needed. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a 5-param tool.
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 with no filler. However, for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this brevity is under-specification rather than genuine 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?
For a 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meanings, return values, side effects, and usage context, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It explains none of them: productGroupId, locationId, maxVariants (with default 250 and max 500), includeInactive, and baselineProductId. The mention of a 'manufacturing baseline' hints at baselineProductId, but that weak connection is insufficient.
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 (audit/validate) acting on variants, an option matrix, and a manufacturing baseline. It is a validation operation, distinguishable from sibling mutations like set_product_group_config or create_product_group_variants. However, 'audit' is slightly abstract and the description doesn't clarify whether it returns findings or fixes anything, which would sharpen it against siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_product_boms or get_product_group_variant_quantities. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a pre-flight check, a data repair, or a reporting call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.