inventory_risk_detectCalculate inventory coverage days and replenishment risk using stock, daily sales, in-transit, and lead time to identify stockout risks.
根据库存、日销、在途和交期计算库存覆盖天数与补货风险。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | ||
| target_cover_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as data prerequisites, error conditions, or response formatting, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, self-contained sentence that is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what the call returns and how target_cover_days is used. It only says 'calculates coverage days and replenishment risk,' which is too high-level to fully guide correct invocation, and it doesn't mention whether the report must exist or how errors surface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It mentions data sources (inventory, daily sales, in-transit, lead time) but never maps them to the parameters report_id or target_cover_days, leaving the agent to guess what report_id refers to and how target_cover_days influences the risk score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (calculate), resource (inventory risk from stock/sales/in-transit/lead time), and the outputs (coverage days and replenishment risk). This distinguishes it from siblings such as profit_calculate or ad_anomaly_detect, which target different metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor states conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.