create_households_shopping_listsCreate a shopping list for a household with optional name, extras, timestamps, and language preferences to organize grocery needs and meal planning.
Create One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| extras | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| update_at | No | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it discloses nothing. It doesn't mention side effects, whether this creates a persistent resource, auth requirements, or what happens on success. The description provides zero behavioral context.
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 words is not conciseness but severe under-specification. While the description is technically brief, brevity without content provides no value; there is no front-loading of useful information because no information exists.
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?
Despite having 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is essentially empty. Even if the output schema exists, the 0% input-schema coverage and total lack of behavioral context leave an agent unable to determine what should be sent or what the call accomplishes. Completely inadequate.
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 0% — all 5 parameters (name, extras, createdAt, update_at, accept-language) are undocumented in the schema, and the description 'Create One' adds no meaning to any of them. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Create One' is a tautology that merely restates the verb from the tool name without specifying the resource, scope, or anything that distinguishes it from the dozens of sibling create tools. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name 'create_households_shopping_lists' already conveys.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_households_shopping_items or create_households_shopping_lists_by_item_recipe. There is no context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or relationships to sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.