Creates a new product in Holded using details such as name, SKU, price, tax, stock, and barcode. Use it to add products or services to your Holded catalog.
Create a new product (Holded API v2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | Product SKU | |
| tax | No | Tax percentage | |
| kind | No | Product kind | |
| name | Yes | Product name | |
| price | No | Product price | |
| stock | No | Initial stock quantity | |
| barcode | No | Product barcode | |
| costPrice | No | Cost price | |
| description | No | Product description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It does not state that only 'name' is required, what happens if the SKU already exists, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. 'Create' implies mutation but nothing else is disclosed.
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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero waste. Efficiency here comes at the cost of substance, but structurally it is clean and not padded.
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?
With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do meaningful work. It omits the required-parameter constraint, default behavior for stock/price/tax, and the return value shape – leaving an agent to reverse-engineer semantics from the schema alone before a mutating call.
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% – all nine properties carry inline descriptions including the product/service enum for 'kind'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. It could have added value by highlighting that only 'name' is mandatory.
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 and resource: 'Create a new product'. An agent knows immediately what the tool does. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like update_product, list_products, or create_service, which share the same product domain.
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 guidance on when to use this versus update_product, create_service, or list_products. The parenthetical '(Holded API v2)' is provenance, not usage direction. The agent has to infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.