lager_ansvarlig_koeRetrieves warehouse manager queue of pending decisions: unknown brands, quarantine, preparation, reconciliation, and settlements. Use it to see what needs approval before stock actions.
Det, der kræver afgørelse: ukendte mærker, karantæne, klargøring, afstemning, afregninger.
| 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 declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. However, the description does not add behavioral context such as what the queue represents, what the agent will receive, or any prerequisites. With annotations handling the safety profile, the description still fails to disclose anything meaningful about the tool's behavior beyond the topic list.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise. However, it is front-loaded with a vague clause ('Det, der kræver afgørelse') before listing topics, and the meaning is not immediately clear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain. It is adequately sized but not optimally structured.
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?
Given a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description should at least clarify what the queue contains and how it differs from sibling tools. Instead, it offers only a cryptic topic list, leaving the agent unable to determine when or why to invoke it. This is insufficient for correct tool selection.
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 optional parameter 'lagerId' is fully documented with a clear note to omit it when only one warehouse is accessible (referencing lager_me). The description adds no parameter guidance, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, 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 'Det, der kræver afgørelse: ukendte mærker, karantæne, klargøring, afstemning, afregninger' (What requires decision: unknown brands, quarantine, preparation, reconciliation, settlements) lists topics but does not state a specific verb and resource. It reads as a category label rather than a clear action, and there is no differentiation from the numerous sibling tools despite the 'lager_ansvarlig_' naming convention hinting at a responsibility queue.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain what the 'queue' is, when an agent should call it, or how it relates to the many sibling 'lager_ansvarlig_' tools. Usage remains entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.