get_inventory_itemFetch a complete inventory item by ID, returning valuations, linked people, and asset details.
Full item with valuations, people links, assets. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inventory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | Inventory item record. | |
| assets | No | ||
| valuations | No | ||
| people_links | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the call costs $0.10, requires an API key, and returns a full item with related valuations, people links, and assets.
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 short and front-loaded with the most important functional information, followed by cost and auth requirements in parentheses. Every phrase earns its place, though the content is sparse.
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 an output schema and read-only annotations present, the description is adequate for a simple single-id retrieval: it states what is returned, the cost, and the API key requirement. It is not fully complete because it fails to distinguish this from the sibling list/get tools, which is relevant given the large sibling set.
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%, and the description does not mention inventory_id at all. Although the parameter name and type are self-explanatory, the description provides no added meaning about what value is needed or how it maps to the returned item.
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 identifies the resource as a single inventory item and specifies what it contains ('valuations, people links, assets'), which is clear and useful. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation from get_inventory or get_inventory_valuations.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related siblings like get_inventory, get_inventory_valuations, or get_entity_assets. It mentions API key requirement but does not state use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.