lager_ansvarlig_overblikGet a warehouse overview of items requiring action—settlements, unknown, quarantine, low stock, overdue—and recent movements; filter by warehouse ID if needed.
Tal, det der kræver handling (afregninger, ukendte, karantæne, lav beholdning, forfaldne), seneste bevægelser.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds useful content-level context about what data is surfaced (problems requiring action plus recent movements), but says nothing about aggregation granularity, time windows, or whether lagerId is optional.
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 terse sentence fragment with no filler, and the action-requiring categories are front-loaded before the secondary 'seneste bevægelser'. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style makes the intended outcome slightly ambiguous.
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 aggregating overview tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the critical missing piece is what the returned numbers look like and over what period they are computed. The category enumeration partially compensates, but an agent still cannot predict the shape or freshness of the response.
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% – the single lagerId parameter is already documented in the schema, including the note that it can be omitted when the user only has one warehouse. The description adds no parameter information, 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 enumerates the concrete content categories (afregninger, ukendte, karantæne, lav beholdning, forfaldne, seneste bevægelser), which conveys that this is an action-oriented dashboard aggregation. However, "Tal, det der kræver handling" is a loose noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as lager_ansvarlig_afregninger or lager_ansvarlig_perioder that cover the same domains individually.
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?
No explicit when-to-use statement. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point overview for a warehouse manager, and there is no guidance on when to prefer this aggregated view over the more specific lager_ansvarlig_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.