Check current inventory levels by item and location, using filters for item ID, location ID, or a specific date to get on-hand stock quantities.
On-hand per item x location (a P5 read model = the signed sum of stock movements), plus the location and stock-tracked-item pickers. Filter by itemId, locationId, or asOf (inclusive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | No | ||
| itemId | No | ||
| locationId | No | ||
| savedViewId | No | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a safe read operation; the description goes beyond that by explaining that the value is a derived read model – the signed sum of stock movements – and that the asOf filter is inclusive. This adds meaningful behavioral context about the computation and filter semantics without contradicting the annotation.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core function and definition, and then lists the filters. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.
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 read-only query with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the main filter semantics, but it leaves savedViewId unexplained and does not describe the response structure beyond mentioning that pickers are included. Given the tool's modest complexity, this is an adequate but not complete description.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It usefully explains itemId, locationId, and asOf (including that asOf is inclusive), but it leaves workspaceId implied and does not mention savedViewId at all, so two of the five parameters still lack semantic guidance.
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 identifies the tool as returning on-hand stock per item and location, and explicitly defines the read model as the signed sum of stock movements. It includes extra context about pickers and filters, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate it, so the agent must infer its niche among many inventory tools.
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 explains that the tool can be filtered by itemId, locationId, or asOf, and notes the inclusive asOf semantics. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as inventory_balance_by_location, and it does not name any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.