loyverse_upsert_modifierCreate a new modifier group with options or update an existing group by providing its id, enabling accurate customization for product variants.
Create a modifier group with its options, or update one by passing its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Omit to create. | |
| name | Yes | ||
| stores | No | Store ids this modifier applies to. | |
| position | No | ||
| modifier_options | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent, but the description does not clarify update semantics—whether options are replaced or merged, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for an upsert tool.
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?
One concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words, and the create/update distinction is immediately clear.
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 parameters and nested options, this description is too sparse. It omits how updates affect existing modifier_options and doesn't clarify required fields beyond what the schema shows. The lack of output schema means it should at least hint at response behavior, but it doesn't.
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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the id behavior already in the schema. It does not explain name, position, stores, or modifier_options, leaving agents without necessary context for those parameters.
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 clearly states the action: create a modifier group with options, or update by id. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_modifiers) by naming the upsert behavior and the resource type.
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?
It explicitly says to omit id for create and pass id for update, giving clear usage context. It doesn't mention alternatives, but there is no other upsert tool for modifiers, so this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.