Retrieve all warehouse and inventory locations from inFlow, with options to sort, paginate, and include related data for reporting or stock management.
List all warehouse/inventory locations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., name) | |
| count | No | ||
| include | No | Related data to include | |
| sortDesc | No | Sort in descending order | |
| includeCount | No | Include total record count in response |
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 says 'List all' but never discloses pagination behavior, that skip/count control page size, or whether the result is capped — a notable gap for a 6-parameter listing tool. Nothing about auth, rate limits, or return shape is provided.
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 is efficient, but for a six-parameter listing tool it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. Nothing is wasted, but very little is said.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, six parameters, and two of them undocumented — the description would need to compensate for those gaps and does not. An agent can guess the call but cannot predict the response shape or paging semantics.
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 67%, and skip and count have no descriptions in the schema at all. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the two undocumented paging parameters remain unexplained in both structured data and prose.
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 ('List ... locations') and scopes it to warehouse/inventory locations, so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like get_location or get_suggested_sublocations, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-single distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling tools (get_location, get_suggested_sublocations) that an agent might otherwise pick. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.