Retrieve inventory and fulfillment locations with addresses, capabilities, and active status, optionally including deactivated locations and limiting results.
Get all inventory/fulfillment locations with addresses, capabilities, and active status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Number of locations to return (default 50, max 100) | |
| includeInactive | No | Whether to include deactivated locations (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data comes back (addresses, capabilities, active status), which is helpful, but says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema, whether inactive locations are excluded by default, or the read-only/non-destructive nature of the call.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every element (verb, resource type, returned fields) 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states the scope and payload fields sufficiently. The only gap is that pagination behavior and the default exclusion of inactive locations are left entirely to the schema.
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 100%, with both 'first' (default 50, max 100) and 'includeInactive' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond those fields, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get all inventory/fulfillment locations') and it names the returned fields (addresses, capabilities, active status). No sibling tool overlaps with locations, so distinguishing from siblings isn't really needed, but it also doesn't relate itself to nearby read tools like get-shop-info or get-inventory-levels.
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 word 'all' plus the includeInactive parameter imply a full listing rather than a filtered lookup, which is enough to infer intended use. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to alternatives, though no direct alternative for locations exists among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.