get_low_stockIdentify products at or below KiotViet minimum stock, sorted by urgency using days of cover to prioritize reordering.
Products at or below their KiotViet minimum stock (minQuantity), most urgent first by days of cover.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| total_low | Yes |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by defining the threshold (minQuantity) and the urgency ordering (days of cover), which helps the agent understand what results to expect.
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 sentence that front-loads the core behavior and ordering with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and how results are ordered. Nothing essential for invoking or interpreting the tool is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The mention of minQuantity is domain context rather than a parameter explanation, which is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource (products), the filter (at or below KiotViet minimum stock/minQuantity), and the ordering (most urgent first by days of cover). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_level and get_top_movers.
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?
Usage is implied: the agent should use this when it needs products at or below minimum stock, sorted by urgency. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_stock_level or suggest_reorder, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.