list_shoppingRetrieve your outstanding shopping items grouped by category, with an option to include already checked-off purchases for review.
Lists what is still to buy, grouped by category. Optionally includes checked-off items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_checked | No | Also list items already checked off. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| to_buy | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: only 'still to buy' items are listed by default, checked-off items are excluded unless include_checked is true, and results are grouped by category. This is consistent with the annotations.
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 two short clauses with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional behavior is appended clearly. Every part earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers all relevant calling behavior: default scope, optional include_checked, and grouping. Nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, with include_checked fully described and given a default. The description loosely mirrors the schema ('Optionally includes checked-off items') but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource ('what is still to buy'), adding grouping by category. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_chores and list_reminders because it names the shopping domain and the optional checked-off items.
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?
Clear context is provided: use this to view outstanding shopping items, optionally including checked-off ones. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, but the sibling set makes the domain-specific purpose clear enough that there is little ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.