shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_release_custody

Release custody of one or more assets by ID, optionally specifying quantities for quantity-tracked assets. Use when returning assigned assets or ending custody.

Instructions

Release custody of one or more assets. For quantity-tracked assets pass quantities {assetId: qty}.

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>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_release_custody"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether release is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what state the assets end up in.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, the core action is front-loaded, and the special-case format follows immediately. No wasted words.

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 33% schema coverage, the description is thin. It omits what happens to the assets, whether custody must exist first, and any permission requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 33% (only orgId is documented). The description compensates for the undocumented quantities parameter by giving its format {assetId: qty}, which is genuinely useful, but leaves assetIds semantics (plural, minItems 1) unexplained.

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 (release) and resource (custody of assets), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling shelf_assign_custody. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 a hint about the quantity-tracked case, but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the asset currently be in custody?), and no explicit routing against shelf_assign_custody or shelf_adjust_quantity.

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

Deploy Server