FastBound MCP

Add item to acquisition

add_acquisition_items

Add a firearm to an uncommitted acquisition record by providing manufacturer, model, serial, caliber, and type.

Instructions

Add a single firearm to a pending acquisition. Executes directly (the acquisition is still uncommitted). Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mpn`	No
`sku`	No
`upc`	No
`cost`	No
`note`	No
`type`	Yes	Required. See list_smartlists ItemType.
`model`	Yes	Required.
`price`	No
`serial`	Yes	Required. The serial marked on the firearm.
`account`	No	Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
`caliber`	Yes	Required. See list_smartlists Caliber.
`importer`	No	Required for imported firearms.
`location`	No	See list_smartlists Location.
`auditUser`	No	Email recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.
`condition`	No	See list_smartlists Condition.
`externalId`	No
`itemNumber`	No
`totalLength`	No
`barrelLength`	No
`manufacturer`	Yes	Required. See list_smartlists Manufacturer.
`acquisitionId`	Yes	GUID of the pending acquisition.
`countryOfManufacture`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations by stating 'Executes directly' and 'Write,' making the mutating, immediate nature of the call explicit. It does not contradict the destructiveHint=false annotation, though it stops short of explaining reversibility or side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key timing/behavioral detail. The final 'Write.' is terse but meaningful given the absence of a readOnly annotation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating call with 22 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It omits return value expectations, failure/validation cues, how repeated calls behave, and how this step fits into the overall acquisition lifecycle beyond 'uncommitted.'

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already has. With 22 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, many optional fields such as cost, totalLength, barrelLength, and countryOfManufacture remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a single firearm') and the target resource ('a pending acquisition'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_pending_acquisition or commit_acquisition, and the singular 'single firearm' adds precision.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by specifying the operation is for a 'pending acquisition' that is 'still uncommitted,' which implies use before commit. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or point to alternatives such as update_acquisition_item.

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

Deploy Server

Add item to acquisition

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools