get_stock_reportRetrieve stock levels for active products, sorted by lowest quantity first, to quickly identify items needing restock. Optionally set a limit; default 200.
Get stock levels for active products, sorted by quantity (lowest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not state that explicitly, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or the format of the report. The sorting behavior is a useful trait, but overall behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key scoping details (active products, sorting). No wasted words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a report tool with no annotations and an undocumented limit parameter, the description is somewhat incomplete: it doesn't clarify what the limit applies to or whether results are paginated. The sorting detail is helpful but not enough to fully compensate.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit'. The description does not mention the limit parameter or what it controls. However, since there is only one optional parameter with a default, and the description adds some context via sorting and scope, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema still provides type and default.
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 clear verb (get) and resource (stock levels/report) with scope (active products) and ordering (sorted by quantity lowest first). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_products or get_product by focusing specifically on stock levels, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 tool versus alternatives like get_products or get_product. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.