lager_ansvarlig_forbrugsvarerRetrieve consumables for a warehouse with current stock, minimum level, cost and sales prices, and last received date to monitor inventory and plan replenishment.
Forbrugsvarer med beholdning, minimum, kost- og salgspris, sidst modtaget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lagerId | No | Lager-id. Udelades, når du kun har adgang til ét lager (se lager_me). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value by signalling that cost and sales prices are exposed, which is meaningful for a 'lageransvarlig' role tool, but it says nothing about scope, filtering, or whether the whole catalogue is returned.
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 short clause with no filler and no repetition; it gets straight to the resource and fields. It is arguably under-sized rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 field enumeration partially compensates by telling the agent what comes back. However, for a role-scoped inventory listing it omits whether results are filtered, paged, or scoped beyond lagerId, and it gives no routing versus the sibling forbrugsvarer tool.
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 100% and the single lagerId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its fallback rule via lager_me. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description is a bare noun phrase enumerating returned fields ('Forbrugsvarer med beholdning, minimum, kost- og salgspris, sidst modtaget') with no verb, so it reads as a data listing rather than stating what the tool does. The resource (forbrugsvarer) is identifiable, but it is not distinguished from the near-identical sibling lager_forbrugsvarer, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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 prerequisite, and no mention of the sibling lager_forbrugsvarer or of how this 'ansvarlig' variant differs from the plain one. The only scoping hint (lagerId omitted when you have access to one warehouse, see lager_me) lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.