lager_ansvarlig_perioderRetrieve warehouse responsibility periods by tag or date range, and optionally return only open periods.
Pr. enhed (tag) eller i et vindue (fra/til, ÅÅÅÅ-MM-DD); aabne=true for kun åbne.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fra | No | ||
| tag | No | ||
| til | No | ||
| aabne | No | ||
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — no return shape, no pagination, no scope/permission notes for the lagerId context, and no indication of what 'open' periods mean.
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 dense fragment with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of near-cryptic ('Pr. enhed') and is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose — it opens with a filter modifier rather than what the call returns.
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 a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never says what is returned, whether tag and fra/til are exclusive, or how lagerId scoping interacts with access. Too much is left for the agent to reconstruct.
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?
With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it gives the date format (ÅÅÅÅ-MM-DD) for fra/til and the meaning of aabne=true. It leaves 'tag' and the mutual exclusivity of tag vs. fra/til window only loosely implied.
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 specifies two query modes (per unit via 'tag' or in a window via 'fra'/'til') but never states the actual action or resource — that it retrieves rental periods ('lejeperioder'). An agent must infer the verb from the title alone, so the purpose is implied rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite many overlapping siblings such as lager_ansvarlig_overblik, lager_bookinger, and lager_ansvarlig_afregninger. The 'eller' hints at two modes but not when to choose this tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.