prepare_intake_inventoryStage 1–100 items for adding to the ReceiptCal virtual pantry, with quantities, units, and optional receipt or retailer details for review.
Stage adding one to 100 items to the ReceiptCal virtual pantry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| retailer | No | ||
| source_reference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real value by disclosing that this is a staged rather than committed write plus the 1–100 item bound. It still omits what staging means operationally — whether it expires, how it interacts with confirm_action, and what happens on repeated staging of the same items.
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 no filler; the scope constraint and destination are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the usage and parameter gaps exist.
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 4-parameter staged-write tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description should explain the stage-then-confirm flow and the role of source/retailer/source_reference. As written it leaves an agent unsure how the staged inventory becomes real or how to attribute the intake.
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 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning can be added, and it only restates the item-count bound. The source enum (receipt/manual/barcode/commerce), retailer, and source_reference — plus the per-item fields like quantity_confidence and storage_location — are left entirely to the raw schema.
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?
States a specific verb ("Stage adding") and resource (one to 100 items to the ReceiptCal virtual pantry), which is enough to separate it from read tools like get_inventory. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, prepare_reconcile_inventory, or from per-item logging tools such as prepare_log_recognized_food.
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?
No statement of when this tool applies versus alternatives (reconcile, log_barcode, log_recognized_food) and no mention that staging must be followed by confirm_action. The agent must infer the workflow from the shared "prepare_" prefix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.