Retrieve all serial numbers for a product using inventoryLines instead of order-based lookup. Returns stock status; quantityOnHand=0 means sold or shipped.
Get all serial numbers (serial numbers) for a specific product using inventoryLines. Much faster than order-based lookup. Returns serials with stock status (quantityOnHand=0 means sold/shipped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The product ID |
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 usefully discloses output semantics (serials carry stock status, and quantityOnHand=0 indicates sold/shipped), which is genuinely valuable. It says nothing about pagination on a 'get all' call, auth requirements, or result size limits, leaving those gaps.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key performance hint. Minor waste in the redundant 'serial numbers (serial numbers)' phrasing, but otherwise tight.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does explain that serials come back with stock status and gives the quantityOnHand=0 interpretation. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; pagination behavior is the remaining omission.
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?
Only one parameter (productId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description confirms the parameter is product-scoped but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (get all serial numbers for a specific product) and names the underlying lookup path (inventoryLines). It implicitly separates itself from order-based siblings via 'Much faster than order-based lookup,' though it does not name them directly.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a specific product' and the comparative note about speed versus order-based lookup, which hints this is the preferred path for a single product. However, no sibling is named explicitly (e.g. get_sales_order_serials, list_all_serials) and there is no when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.