Check available and forecast stock for any product by entering its partial or full name. Get real-time inventory levels to inform fulfillment and reordering decisions.
Look up available/forecast stock for a product by (partial) name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that the lookup accepts a 'partial' name, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain what 'available/forecast' means in terms of real-time data, whether the results are cached, or if any authorization is needed. The description partially covers the behavioral burden but leaves room for clarification.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extra words. However, it could have added brief usage guidance or a note about the forecast aspect, but overall it is well-structured 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?
It is a relatively simple tool with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers most necessary aspects. It mentions the lookup type (available/forecast) and the partial name behavior. However, it does not explain what the output format is (e.g., a number, a list, units) or any error conditions (e.g., product not found). Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter. The description says the lookup is by 'name' and mentions 'partial' matching, which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name 'productName'. However, it doesn't specify whether the name is case-sensitive or if exact matches are preferred. The description provides some additional semantics, but not extensive detail, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Look up') and resource ('stock level for a product') and clearly mentions a key behavior (partial name match). It distinguishes itself from siblings like odoo_search_read and odoo_create_sale_order by focusing on stock lookup rather than generic read or write operations.
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 description implies a specific use case: checking stock for a product. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like shopify_get_inventory (which is for Shopify) or odoo_search_read (which is generic Odoo records). No exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer that this is the Odoo-specific stock lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.