List a product catalog with per-record and variant stock details. Filter by status, price, stock state, and variants to get onHand, reserved, and available quantities.
List a product model's catalog with stock and variant info (onHand/reserved/available per record and variant).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort expression, e.g. 'createdAt' or '-updatedAt' | |
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| modelId | No | Product model id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior, and it does confirm this is a read operation and reveals the output shape. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, whether modelId is effectively required despite the schema listing no required fields, or how filters affect results.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key distinguishing details in a parenthetical. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested filter object, this description is incomplete. It omits usage boundaries, required-versus-optional parameter behavior, and filter semantics, leaving significant room for an agent to call it incorrectly.
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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate enough. It implies modelId through 'a product model's catalog' but says nothing about sort, limit, offset, or the filter object fields, leaving most parameter meaning to be inferred from names alone.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List a product model's catalog' with stock and variant info. It also specifies the distinguishing output details (onHand/reserved/available per record and variant), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_records and list_models.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a product model's catalog with stock and variant information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.