Retrieve inventory stocktaking documents with line items, showing expected and actual amounts for stock count verification.
Query inventory (stocktaking) documents with line items and expected vs real amounts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states a read-only query and gives return-content context (line items, expected vs real amounts). However, it discloses no side-effect/safety caveats, authorization needs, or pagination/filtering behavior.
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 focused sentence with the operation and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every word adds information.
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 no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks the syntax for the 'where'/order parameters and the exact return shape. The description makes an unfiltered call possible (no required params) but is insufficient for anything beyond default usage.
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 only 25% (only 'order' is described as a GraphQL clause), and the tool description adds no parameter meaning. 'where' remains completely opaque, and skip/take are only inferable from defaults and min/max. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not.
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 uses an explicit verb ('Query'), names the specific resource ('inventory (stocktaking) documents'), and adds distinguishing content ('line items and expected vs real amounts'). This clearly separates it from sibling create/delete inventory document tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'Query' verb and resource name, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as m3_stock_documents or m3_graphql. It does not state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.