Skip to main content
Glama
koblesystems

koble-mcp

Official
by koblesystems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mrp_plan

Calculate material requirements by netting open demand and supply through the bill of materials day by day, returning what to buy and make, by when, and why, with a CSV worksheet.

Instructions

Material requirements plan for one company, read-only: nets open sales and job demand, open manufacturing batches and open purchase orders against stock, day by day, through the bill of materials, and returns what to buy and make, by when, and why. ALWAYS ask the user two things first and never assume either: the time frame (through, or days) — 'buy and make what is needed to cover everything due by this date' — and the scope: everything, particular vendors, or particular products. EBMS does not publish vendor lead times, so orders carry a needed-by date; pass leadTimeDays only if the user gives one. Only stocked products and stocked lines are planned; drop-ship, associated and sync lines belong to their own orders. The planner's worksheet comes back attached as CSV: give it to the user as a file in the conversation, unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoTime frame as days from today. Give this or through.
itemsNoWith scope 'products': the product IDs to report.
scopeNoRequired. ASK the user: everything, particular vendors, or particular products? Buyers often work one vendor at a time. The whole company is always planned; the scope decides what is reported.
inChatNoDefault true: attach the worksheet's CSV to this result.
saveToNoFolder for the worksheet. Default: KOBLE_OUTPUT_DIR, or 'Koble MRP' in the user's Documents.
companyNoCompany, by ID or name. May be omitted only when one company is available.
maxRowsNoRows per section in this result, default 25. The worksheet always has every row.
throughNoLast date to cover, yyyy-mm-dd. Give this or days.
vendorsNoWith scope 'vendors': vendor IDs or names. A product belongs to its primary vendor.
alsoMadeNoProduct IDs to treat as manufactured although they have never been on a batch.
leadTimesNoLead time in days per product ID, overriding leadTimeDays.
worksheetNoDefault true: write the planner's worksheet (CSV).
buyInsteadNoMade products to plan as purchased for this run (not exploded into components).
includeJobsNoCount job transfers as demand. Default true.
minimumRuleNoHow an item that ends the time frame under its minimum is restored. when-crossed (default): the minimum is a reorder point, so the order is dated the day the item went under and can replace an expedite. by-end: the minimum is a level to be back at by the end of the time frame, so the order is dated its last day. It is a company policy; ask once.
leadTimeDaysNoA lead time to assume for every item, only if the user states one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-rc.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly says the tool is read-only, requires upfront user clarification, discloses that EBMS does not publish vendor lead times, and explains that drop-ship/associated/sync lines are excluded. It also tells the agent how to deliver the CSV attachment unchanged, leaving little room for surprise.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers behavioral constraints and output handling. Every sentence earns its place, though it is one long block and could be lightly structured. For a tool with 16 parameters and mandatory user-interaction steps, the length is reasonable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given high complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the planner returns, that the worksheet comes back as CSV, and that it must be given to the user unchanged. It does not enumerate every parameter or return section, but the schema already documents all parameters, and the description covers key exclusions and required user questions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds decision context beyond the schema: the time frame is expressed as through or days, leadTimeDays should only be passed when the user gives one, scope controls reporting while the whole company is always planned, and only stocked items are considered. This materially helps an agent choose and fill parameters correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: it produces a material requirements plan for one company, read-only. It clearly explains the planning logic (nets sales, jobs, batches, purchase orders, stock, BOM) and what it returns, which distinguishes it from generic EBMS data-access tools and mrp_item_view.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit interaction instructions: ALWAYS ask the user for the time frame and scope first and never assume either. It also warns to pass leadTimeDays only if the user states one and limits planning to stocked products and lines. It does not explicitly route to alternatives like mrp_item_view, but the usage context is clear.

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