Check the available stock of a specific product by its ID. Use this to confirm product availability when a customer asks.
Consulta el stock disponible de un producto específico por su ID.
Usar esta herramienta cuando el cliente pregunte por disponibilidad de un producto puntual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| producto_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'Consulta', but says nothing about behavior when the product ID is unknown, the stock format, or any limits. Minimal but adequate for a simple read tool.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage condition, with no wasted wording. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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. For a single-parameter read tool, purpose and when-to-use cover the essentials; only edge-case behavior (unknown ID) is left unstated.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter. The phrase 'por su ID' clarifies that producto_id is an identifier rather than a name, adding some meaning, but no format or validity details are given.
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 specific verb (Consulta) and resource (stock disponible) scoped to a single product by ID, so the agent immediately knows what it does. The purpose is functionally distinct from the sibling registrar_venta, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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 second sentence gives a clear triggering condition: use when the customer asks about the availability of a specific product. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which is the only gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.