Calculate exact direct, leaf, or net BOM requirements for a product build at one location using available or on-hand stock.
Calculate exact direct, leaf, or net BOM requirements at one location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | net | |
| maxDepth | No | ||
| productId | Yes | ||
| locationId | Yes | ||
| stockBasis | No | available | |
| maxProducts | No | ||
| buildQuantity | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive calculation but never says so, and it discloses nothing about truncation behavior (maxDepth/maxProducts caps), how stockBasis affects results, or what the computation returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline.
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 7-parameter computation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine depth/limit semantics, stock basis behavior, or expected result shape from what is given.
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% across 7 parameters. The description names the three mode values, which covers one enum, but says nothing about stockBasis (available vs onHand), maxDepth/maxProducts limits, or that buildQuantity is a decimal-string quantity. Most parameter meaning is left undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (calculate) and resource (BOM requirements), and enumerates the three modes (direct, leaf, net), which sets it apart from get_bill_of_materials and compare_product_boms. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this over get_bill_of_materials, compare_product_boms, or get_inventory_summary, no stated prerequisites (e.g., an existing BOM and configured manufacturing config), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.