Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Product

create_product

Create a product or service tied to sales or purchase articles; provide name, code, unit, price, and article IDs from list_sale_articles/list_purchase_articles.

Instructions

Create a product/service with a sales or purchase article. Account IDs are read-only; use article IDs from list_sale_articles/list_purchase_articles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesProduct code (max 20 characters)
nameYesProduct name (max 1000 characters)
unitNoUnit (e.g. tk, h, km; max 10 characters)
sales_priceNoSales price
sale_accounts_idNoUnsupported read-only field; provide cl_sale_articles_id instead
cl_sale_articles_idNoSales article ID
purchase_accounts_idNoUnsupported read-only field; provide cl_purchase_articles_id instead
cl_purchase_articles_idNoPurchase article ID
sale_accounts_dimensions_idNoSales account dimension ID
cl_sale_accounts_dimensions_idNoLegacy alias for sale_accounts_dimensions_id; supply only one value
purchase_accounts_dimensions_idNoPurchase account dimension ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.32.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / cl_sale_accounts_dimensions_id / description
      Previous value: -"Sales account dimension ID"New value: +"Legacy alias for sale_accounts_dimensions_id; supply only one value"
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"Product code"New value: +"Product code (max 20 characters)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / code / maxLength
      Added value: +20
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Product name"New value: +"Product name (max 1000 characters)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +1000
    • changedInput schema / properties / purchase_accounts_id / description
      Previous value: -"Purchase account ID"New value: +"Unsupported read-only field; provide cl_purchase_articles_id instead"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sale_accounts_id / description
      Previous value: -"Sales account ID"New value: +"Unsupported read-only field; provide cl_sale_articles_id instead"
    • changedInput schema / properties / unit / description
      Previous value: -"Unit (e.g. tk, h, km)"New value: +"Unit (e.g. tk, h, km; max 10 characters)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / unit / maxLength
      Added value: +10
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent) but the description does not address non-idempotency (repeat calls create duplicates) or what happens on a conflicting code. Its one added signal — that account IDs are read-only and should be replaced by article IDs — partly restates the schema's own field notes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the create action before the caveats. The second sentence is dense and slightly ambiguous ('Account IDs are read-only' could be misread as an authorization statement rather than an ignored-input warning), but there is no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required identity fields and the article-ID trap but says nothing about unit, sales_price, dimension IDs, validation failures, or duplicate-code behavior. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented. The description reinforces the sale/purchase article distinction but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema's own field text, which is the expected baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a product/service') plus the article linkage that defines the record. It is implicitly distinguishable from update_product/delete_product via the verb, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives useful operational guidance on where to source IDs ('use article IDs from list_sale_articles/list_purchase_articles') and warns which fields to avoid. However it never says when to choose create_product over update_product, or when a product should be created versus handled through an invoice flow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools