digikey-list-mcp

digikey_validate_mylist

Read-only

Validate every line in a DigiKey MyList against current catalog data, flagging warnings for price, stock, packaging, or part mismatches before checkout.

Instructions

Refresh every MyList line against exact DigiKey product data and report warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>"
    },
    "name": "digikey_validate_mylist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. 'Refresh' implies re-fetching external data (consistent with openWorldHint) and 'report warnings' hints at a non-mutating validation output, adding modest context. However, it doesn't explain what a warning looks like, whether results are cached, or rate/credential constraints for the external DigiKey call.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and outcome, zero filler. Efficient, though it could be slightly richer given the tool's role.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a parameter that is entirely undocumented (0% coverage) and a read-only external validation tool with no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps an agent would need to fill elsewhere.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter (list_id) that the description never mentions or explains. The tool's name implies a MyList context, but the description does not clarify list_id's format or source, leaving the sole parameter undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clear verb ('Refresh... against exact DigiKey product data') and resource ('every MyList line'), with an explicit output ('report warnings'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like digikey_update_mylist_line (which mutates) and digikey_get_mylist (which just reads), though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this is a validation/refresh operation for a MyList, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting it over digikey_preview_mylist_changes or digikey_get_mylist, and no statement of prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server