Retrieve warehouse stock and price level data from Money S3 accounting system. Use to check inventory availability and pricing information without making changes.
Query warehouses and price levels (read-only)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is a useful safety signal, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, filtering, or any operational caveats. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the action, the resources, and the read-only nature in a single short sentence. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient: it names the operation and the queried resources. A slightly richer note about what the response contains would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.
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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful parameter semantics. The description compensates by identifying what is queried ('warehouses and price levels'), which is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 two concrete resources ('warehouses and price levels'), so it clearly states what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling listing tools like m3_stock_cards or m3_stock_documents.
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?
The phrase 'Query ... (read-only)' implies use for read-only lookups of warehouse/price-level data and hints that it is not for mutations. It provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions relative to sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.