shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_bulk_update_location

Move multiple Shelf assets to a single location in one call. Provide asset IDs and a location ID to bulk update their assigned location.

Instructions

Move several assets to one location.

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": {
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>",
      "locationId": "<locationId>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_bulk_update_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`assetIds`	Yes
`locationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds nothing beyond them. For a bulk mutation it says nothing about partial-failure behavior, whether the move is atomic, per-asset error reporting, or permission requirements — exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is the right size for a simple batch operation. The terseness is a coverage problem, not a structural one.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, no parameter documentation for two required fields, and a bulk mutation whose failure semantics are unstated, the definition leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need in order to call it reliably.

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 coverage is only 33% (only orgId is documented), so the description carries the burden for assetIds and locationId. 'Several assets' and 'one location' loosely map to the two required params, but no format, ID shape, or constraint detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (assets to a location), and the word 'several' signals the bulk scope that separates it from the single-asset sibling shelf_update_asset_location. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 plural 'several assets' implies this is the batch variant to use when moving more than one asset, but the description never states when to prefer it over shelf_update_asset_location or what preconditions apply (e.g. location must exist). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server