loyverse_set_item_imageSet or replace a catalogue item's image using a public URL. Updates item visuals directly in your Loyverse point-of-sale catalogue.
Attach an image to a catalogue item from a public URL, replacing any existing one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| image_url | Yes | Publicly reachable https URL of the image. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'replacing any existing one', which is a destructive overwrite behavior, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: an agent relying on the annotation might assume existing images are not overwritten. The description contradicts the structured metadata.
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 sentence with no fluff. The action, target, input source, and side effect are all present and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 simple setter with two required parameters, the description covers what it does and the replacement behavior. It lacks an explicit return-value statement (no output schema), but this is a minor gap. The contradictory annotation slightly reduces the overall completeness, but the description itself is nearly sufficient.
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 50% (only image_url is described). The description maps item_id to 'catalogue item' and image_url to 'public URL', but it does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds minimal new meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('image to a catalogue item'), and the phrase 'replacing any existing one' clearly communicates the operation's scope. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings, none of which focus on setting item images.
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: use this tool to attach an image from a public URL, implying it is not for local file uploads. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but for this simple operation the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.