Batch-add a collection, estate haul, or curated lot to a Stockpile storefront catalog, with each item's price, quantity, image, rarity, and delivery details.
Batch inventory and list a collection, estate haul, or curated lot directly to a Stockpile storefront catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of collection items to add to inventory | |
| store_id | Yes | Target store ID or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a bulk write ('batch inventory and list'), but never discloses whether items are created or updated on conflict, what happens on partial failures, whether defaults (quantity=1, delivery_sla_days=4) apply, or what auth is required.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently names the action, the batch nature, and the target catalog.
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 batch mutation with a nested item array, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain conflict/update semantics, partial-failure behavior, and auth. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents all top-level and nested fields. The description adds only the 'storefront catalog' framing and the types of source lots, not meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific action (batch inventory and list) and resource (collection/estate haul/curated lot) onto a storefront catalog, which is distinguishable from add_store_item's single-item intent. However, 'inventory' as a verb is vague and the phrase blends reading stock with writing listings, leaving the precise operation somewhat ambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_store_item or run_inventory_sweep, despite those being obvious alternatives. It also doesn't hint at any prerequisites such as store ownership or credit limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.