Create a new empty shopping list by providing a name. Use it to organize groceries and meal-planning items for better food management.
Create a new empty shopping list.
Args: name: Name for the new list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a new empty list is created but does not mention return behavior, duplicate/name-collision handling, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately compact: one sentence states the purpose and one documents the argument. There is no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter create tool, the description covers the core invocation, especially with an output schema available for return values. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it omits behavioral context such as duplicate handling and whether any other setup is required. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that the single required parameter is the name for the new list, but it adds no constraints, formatting, uniqueness rules, or other meaning beyond what the parameter name already implies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('new empty shopping list'), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like add_shopping_list_item or get_shopping_lists. The word 'empty' adds useful precision about the resulting state.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_shopping_list_item or create_recipe. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the generic 'Create a new empty shopping list' statement; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.