Query stock and warehouse documents including controlling variables, partner details, and line items. Apply filters, sorting, and pagination to retrieve the exact records needed.
Query stock/warehouse documents with controlling variables, partner details, and line items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies read-only behavior and 'line items' hints at return content, but nothing is stated about pagination behavior, whether a where filter is needed, the response shape, or any side effects/permissions. This is minimal transparency but leaves significant behavior unstated.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it efficiently conveys the resource and key included data. It is compact and easy to scan, though the brevity sacrifices useful usage and behavioral detail that other dimensions penalize.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and a large set of sibling tools, this description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation. It omits usage conditions, parameter semantics, return shape, and any distinction from other stock/inventory query tools, so an agent will likely need to inspect sibling schemas or guess.
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 50%, with skip and take having no description and order/where receiving only generic GraphQL syntax labels. The description does not explain how 'controlling variables, partner details, or line items' map to the where parameter, nor does it clarify pagination semantics. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 a specific verb, 'Query', and names the resource, 'stock/warehouse documents', along with the key included data: controlling variables, partner details, and line items. It clearly reads as a read operation and is distinguishable from create/delete stock document siblings, though it does not differentiate itself from m3_stock_cards or m3_stock_lists.
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 use this tool versus related alternatives such as m3_stock_cards, m3_stock_lists, or m3_inventory_documents. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which query tool fits the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.