Retrieve all store and warehouse outlets with their IDs, names, addresses, and time zones to identify locations for sales, stock, and reporting queries.
All outlets (stores/warehouses) with id, name, address and time zone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond listing returned fields, which the output schema already provides, and says nothing about completeness or ordering of the collection.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the key scoping word 'All' is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing an agent needs is buried.
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?
With zero parameters and a present output schema, the description need not explain return shape or pagination. It is complete for a trivial list call, though it could note whether the result is paginated or complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical only clarifies the entity, not a parameter.
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?
Names the resource (outlets) and disambiguates it as stores/warehouses, so an agent knows exactly what entity type it gets back. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the listing intent is unambiguous and no sibling covers outlets.
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 word 'All' implies a full unfiltered enumeration, which is minimal but real context, and there is no competing sibling for outlets so routing risk is low. It never states prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a filtered lookup over this call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.