Skip to main content
Glama
theluckystrike

mcp-purchase-requisition

by theluckystrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Create a purchase-requisition

purchase-requisition_create

Create a reusable purchase-requisition checklist, returning its CL-NNNN ID for adding steps and later use.

Instructions

Create a reusable purchase-requisition and return its CL-NNNN id: a name, a category and an optional description. Add steps with purchase-requisition_item_add. Free tier: 3 of them, runs unlimited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWhat the purchase-requisition is, e.g. Pre-delivery vehicle check or Site handover
categoryNoA grouping key, lower-cased and hyphenated, e.g. handover or safety. Default general
descriptionNoWhat this purchase-requisition is for and when to run it, printed at the top of a blank copy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.22.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the return ID format, the reusable nature, and the free-tier quota ('3 of them, runs unlimited'), which is useful operational detail beyond what annotations express.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action and return value, then add the follow-up tool and quota info. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple 3-param creation tool with no output schema, it covers what is created, what is returned, how to proceed with item_add, and a quota. The description is slightly ambiguous about whether category is required, but the schema resolves that.

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 description coverage is 100%: each parameter already has a clear description, example, and the category default is documented. The description only mentions the fields at a high level and doesn't explicitly mark category as optional, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Create' and names the resource 'purchase-requisition' plus the concrete outcome 'return its CL-NNNN id'. It also distinguishes itself from purchase-requisition_item_add by saying steps are added with that separate tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operational context: this creates the header, and step creation is explicitly routed to purchase-requisition_item_add. It doesn't enumerate exclusions for show/list/delete, but those tools are distinct by their names and the agent can infer when to use them.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools