shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_get_asset

Read-only

Retrieves full details of an asset, including its location, custody, bookings, notes, custom fields, and quantities.

Instructions

Get full details of an asset (location, custody, bookings, notes, custom fields, quantities).

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": {
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_get_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the categories of data returned (custody, bookings, custom fields, quantities), but says nothing about permissions, empty-field behavior, or pagination.

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 no filler; the parenthetical field list is the only elaboration and it earns its place by previewing the return payload. Slightly terse given the missing parameter context.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the detail categories returned, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The only real gap is assetId semantics, which is left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 50%: orgId is documented in the schema but assetId has no description at all. The description does not compensate, giving no hint about the expected assetId format (ID vs code) or how orgId scoping interacts with it. With low coverage the description should carry more of this burden.

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 ('Get') and resource ('asset') and enumerates the detail categories returned (location, custody, bookings, notes, custom fields, quantities). This clearly distinguishes it from shelf_list_assets, which returns a collection rather than one asset's full record, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The requirement of an assetId implies it is for a single known asset, and 'full details' implies detail lookup rather than listing, but the agent is left to infer that against shelf_list_assets and shelf_lookup_code.

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

Deploy Server