shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_link_qr

Link an existing Shelf QR code to an asset so scanning resolves to the correct item and supports custody tracking in your workspace.

Instructions

Link an existing Shelf QR code to an asset.

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": {
      "qrId": "<qrId>",
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_link_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`qrId`	Yes
`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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds only the weak precondition implied by 'existing', and says nothing about whether re-linking an already-linked code overwrites or errors, nor about required permissions.

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 grammatical sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and two of three parameters undocumented, the description should describe the link semantics (what happens on conflict, whether the link is reversible) and the qrId format. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess before calling.

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 33% – only orgId is documented (defaulting to SHELF_ORG_ID). The description mentions 'QR code' and 'asset' but does not clarify the expected form of qrId (raw code string vs. internal ID) or assetId, so it does not compensate for the documented 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource pair ('Link ... Shelf QR code to an asset'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from related tools such as shelf_lookup_code or explain how it differs from other asset-mutating siblings like shelf_update_asset.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g., the QR code must already exist and be unlinked), and no mention of alternatives. The word 'existing' hints at a precondition but is not framed as usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server