Assign assets to a team member's custody, including per-asset quantities for quantity-tracked items. Use it to record custody in Shelf.
Give one or more assets into a team member's custody. For quantity-tracked assets pass quantities {assetId: qty}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | No | Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace. | |
| assetIds | Yes | ||
| quantities | No | ||
| custodianId | Yes | Team member ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates but is non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying the quantities payload for quantity-tracked assets, but says nothing about permissions required, whether it overwrites existing custody, or what happens to partially-tracked 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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter nuance second. Nothing is wasted, though the quantities clause is slightly jammed in without clear separation from the main action.
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-param mutation tool with a nested quantities object and no output schema, the description covers the tricky nested parameter but leaves permissions, overwrite behavior, and return expectations unaddressed. Adequate but with real gaps for a custody-changing operation.
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 coverage is only 50%: assetIds and quantities have no schema descriptions. The description does compensate for the opaque nested quantities parameter by specifying the {assetId: qty} shape, but assetIds and the overall ID format remain undocumented, so it only partly fills the gap.
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 ('give into custody') and resource ('one or more assets'), and implies the custodian is a team member. It reads clearly, but it never names its counterpart shelf_release_custody or otherwise differentiates itself from the release path beyond intuition.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of shelf_release_custody as the inverse operation. The only guidance is a fragment about quantity-tracked assets, which is closer to parameter help than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.