Skip to main content
Glama
mouser-mcp

mouser-mcp

Get a Mouser cart

get_cart
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve itemized details for a Mouser cart using a specific key. View quantities, item prices, and the total merchandise value for a given cart.

Instructions

Returns a Mouser cart's items, quantities, prices and merchandise total.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cartKey": "<cartKey>"
    },
    "name": "get_cart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cartKeyYesMouser cart key.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
cartKeyNo
currencyNo
itemCountNo
merchandiseTotalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only the contents returned, not behavior like failure modes for invalid cart keys, whether an empty cart returns an error or empty list, or authentication requirements for the open-world lookup. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds little beyond the field list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the returned fields. Nothing extraneous, though it is quite terse and leaves structural gaps unaddressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required, and the description need not repeat it. However, for an open-world retrieval with one required key, the description says nothing about missing-cart behavior or currency context, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single cartKey param is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or semantics beyond naming what the cart contains, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a Mouser cart's items, quantities, prices...') and names the concrete data returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_to_cart and update_cart_items by being a read-only retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly reference those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The read-only nature is implied, and the required cartKey suggests usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against siblings such as search_parts or get_order. An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.