shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_kit_add_assets

Add one or more assets to an existing kit while keeping current contents intact. Use it to expand a kit, optionally specifying quantities for tracked assets.

Instructions

Add assets to an existing kit (existing contents are kept).

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": {
      "kitId": "<kitId>",
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_kit_add_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kitId`	Yes
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.
`assetIds`	Yes
`quantities`	No	For quantity-tracked assets: {assetId: units to put in the kit}. Defaults to all available units.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description usefully confirms merge-not-replace behavior, which is real added value, but says nothing about partial failures, quantity conflicts, or return behavior for a write tool.

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 tight sentence with the key additive constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the tool's 4-parameter complexity.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with a nested quantities object, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented in the schema, the description leaves out important details such as quantity semantics, orgId defaults, and result/error behavior.

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 only 50%: kitId and assetIds carry no descriptions, and only 'quantities' is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., quantity semantics, whether quantities overrides defaults) to compensate for that gap.

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 (add) and resource (assets to an existing kit), and the parenthetical 'existing contents are kept' clarifies the additive scope. It distinguishes itself in spirit from shelf_kit_remove_assets, though it never names a 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus shelf_kit_action, shelf_create_kit, or shelf_kit_remove_assets. The only usage-adjacent signal is the additive note, which must be inferred rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server