loyverse_get_inventoryRetrieve current stock levels for each product variant by store, with optional filters to narrow results by store or variant IDs.
Read current stock per variant per store. Filter by store_ids or variant_ids to keep the result small.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| store_ids | No | ||
| variant_ids | No | ||
| updated_at_max | No | ISO 8601 timestamp. | |
| updated_at_min | No | ISO 8601 timestamp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior by indicating this is a snapshot of "current" stock and implying unfiltered results can be large. It does not, however, disclose pagination, default limits, or response shape.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the filtering guidance earns its place by adding actionable parameter context.
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?
For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain limit semantics, pagination, how updated_at filters behave, or what the returned inventory response looks like, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details.
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 40%, so the description must compensate for the remaining parameters. It adds meaning only for store_ids and variant_ids via the filtering advice; limit and updated_at_min/max receive no behavioral or semantic explanation beyond their raw schema types.
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 and resource: "Read current stock per variant per store." This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope, distinguishing it from write operations like loyverse_set_inventory, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get/list 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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever current stock levels per variant and store are needed. It also provides practical usage guidance by advising filters to keep results small, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.