mcp-epicor

Get part

get_part

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an Epicor Kinetic part by its PartNum to retrieve part details from read-only ERP data.

Instructions

Read a Kinetic part by PartNum.

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": {
      "part_num": "<part_num>"
    },
    "name": "get_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part_num`	Yes	Epicor PartNum.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ium`	No
`class_id`	No
`part_num`	Yes
`non_stock`	No
`type_code`	No
`part_description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the PartNum does not exist, no auth or rate context, no hint that results come from the live Kinetic/Epicor ERP.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and lookup key come first. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified for anything beyond the basic happy path.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple: one fully documented param, an output schema defining the return shape, and annotations covering safety. Given that structured richness, the description is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being error/not-found behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Epicor PartNum.' The description names PartNum but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or company/plant scoping detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3.

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 (Read) and resource (Kinetic part) plus the lookup key (PartNum), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings, though the sibling names (get_sales_order, get_customer, get_shipments) target distinct resources so no confusion arises.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission note, and no mention of alternatives for retrieving part data. The agent must infer that this is the single-part lookup path 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.

Deploy Server