Retrieve and filter stock count records by status, location, or count date to review and manage inventory counts.
List stock count/inventory count records
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., countDate) | |
| count | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| sortDesc | No | Sort in descending order | |
| locationId | No | Filter by location ID | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only list operation but says nothing about pagination behavior (skip/count), default result size, or what happens when filters are omitted — all relevant for an 8-parameter query 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 padding and the resource front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted in other dimensions rather than being a model of well-targeted concision.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, this one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell how to paginate, filter, or interpret results 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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond the generic resource name. The undocumented parameters (skip, count, status, include) get no compensation from the description, leaving half the inputs semantically opaque.
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 ('List') and resource ('stock count/inventory count records'), clarifying the resource with a synonym. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_stock_count or upsert_stock_count, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get-vs-write boundary from the name alone.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use context, no guidance on the available filters (status, locationId), and no mention of alternatives such as get_stock_count for a single record. The agent gets no help deciding whether this or a sibling tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.