Query supplier stock levels by article, supplier, or both. Retrieve lists and specific inventory data from Luceed ERP for procurement and availability checks.
Supplier stock: Supplier stock levels (StanjeZaliheDobavljaci). Actions: lista, artikl, dobavljac, artikl_dobavljac.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sifra | No | Article code | |
| action | Yes | Which endpoint action to call | |
| sifra_artikla | No | Article code | |
| sifra_dobavljaca | No | Supplier code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or result shape. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus an action list, so the agent gets no behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the resource stated first and the actions second. It is efficient, though the leading 'Supplier stock:' fragment duplicates the resource clause that follows it.
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?
A four-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to explain what each action returns and how the optional code parameters interact. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to invoke the actions correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents sifra, sifra_artikla, sifra_dobavljaca and the action enum. The description merely repeats the enum values without clarifying the semantics of the Croatian action names or which parameters pair with which action, so it adds no value over the schema. 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?
It names the resource (supplier stock levels) and echoes the internal endpoint name StanjeZaliheDobavljaci, which does distinguish it from the sibling luceed_stanje_zalihe. However, the four action values (lista, artikl, dobavljac, artikl_dobavljac) are listed without any explanation of what each one actually retrieves, so the agent cannot tell what the tool does in each mode.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. There are closely related siblings (luceed_stanje_zalihe, luceed_stanje_zalihe_serijski) that an agent must disambiguate against, and the description offers no criteria for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.