get_inventoryBrowse owned inventory items with filters to locate specific assets. Use this tool to check what inventory is available and narrow results by criteria.
Browse owned inventory with filters. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing a $0.10 cost and API key requirement, which are behavioral constraints beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or filter specifics, but the annotations lower the burden.
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 sentence that communicates purpose, filtering capability, cost, and authentication requirement without any filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 simple browse operation with no required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that the available filters are not enumerated, but this does not prevent a basic invocation and the overall context is adequate.
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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds that filters are supported, which is meaningful even though the schema is empty and allows additional properties. It does not list filter names, but with no required parameters this is acceptable.
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 states a specific action ('Browse owned inventory') and mentions filters, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_inventory_item or search_inventory, so it falls short of a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_inventory or get_inventory_item. The phrase 'with filters' implies a browsing use case, but there are no explicit use conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.