Lightspeed X-Series MCP

get_inventory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve stock on hand per outlet for a product variant, including reorder points and average cost. Filter by outlet, include variants, and hide zero-stock rows.

Instructions

Stock on hand per outlet for one product (variant), with reorder point/amount and average cost. include_variants=True covers its whole family (every colour and size; can be hundreds of rows). outlet filters by outlet name (substring). hide_zero drops rows with nothing on hand.

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`outlet`	No
`hide_zero`	No
`product_id`	Yes
`include_variants`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: include_variants can return hundreds of rows (a volume warning), outlet uses substring matching, and hide_zero suppresses empty rows — details not derivable from the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the caveats that matter. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be restated, and the description covers the main pitfalls (row volume, substring filtering, default hide_zero). The remaining gap is product_id semantics and how this tool relates to list_inventory_levels.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain three of four parameters well (variant family expansion, substring outlet matching, zero-row suppression). It leaves product_id entirely unexplained — whether it expects an internal ID, a variant ID, or a handle, and whether a variant ID works when include_variants is false.

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 concrete resource and scope: stock on hand per outlet for one product/variant, including reorder point, reorder amount and average cost. An agent immediately knows what data it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling list_inventory_levels, which sounds closely related.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it's a per-product lookup, so an agent can infer it's for a single SKU rather than a bulk stock scan. The description never says when to prefer it over list_inventory_levels or list_stock_adjustments, and gives no prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.