lager_opslagRetrieve storage details for any item: identify it, locate the holder, determine proper placement, required protective equipment, and linked documents like instructions and datasheets.
Hvad er det, hvem har det, hvor skal det stå, værnemidler og dokumenter (brugsanvisning, datablad).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kode | Yes | Mærke (tag) eller serienummer. |
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 useful context about the returned content domains (PPE, documents/datasheets), but does not describe the response shape or any lookup failure behavior.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the returned information with no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but every clause maps to a content domain.
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 description appropriately enumerates what a successful lookup returns, and the single-parameter, read-only nature keeps complexity low. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though the routing to sibling tools remains unaddressed.
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% with a single documented parameter ('kode' = tag or serial number), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 information the lookup returns (what it is, who holds it, where it belongs, PPE, documents) rather than stating the action itself. Combined with the name 'opslag' and title 'Slå et mærke op', the purpose is inferable, but the description on its own is a content list, not a clear verb+resource statement.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of any of the many sibling tools (e.g. lager_tjek_ud, lager_forbrug). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.