Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Bulk verify inventory

bulk_verify_inventory
Idempotent

Verify a list of serial numbers as physically present during inventory cycle counts, optionally updating their location and rolling back changes if any serial fails.

Instructions

Mark a list of serial numbers as physically verified during a cycle count, optionally updating their location. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
serialsYesSerial numbers to verify.
locationNoLocation to set when updateLocation is true.
auditUserNoEmail recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.
verifiedUtcNoVerification timestamp (ISO UTC); defaults to now.
updateLocationNoIf true, set the location of verified items.
rollbackPartialNoIf true, roll back all changes when any serial fails.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces the write nature with 'Write.' It adds that items are 'marked as physically verified' and that location may be updated, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as audit trail impact, rollback behavior, or what happens on partial failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the core action. The one-word sentence 'Write.' is somewhat redundant with 'Mark' but reinforces behavioral intent without adding bulk. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The operation is a bulk write with 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for orienting the agent. It explains the primary use and optional location change but omits guidance on batch failure, return values, or how auditUser and verifiedUtc fit into the orchestration. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall context is only moderately complete.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds value by mapping 'list of serial numbers' to serials and 'optionally updating their location' to updateLocation/location, but it does not add semantic meaning for the remaining parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Mark'), a specific resource ('a list of serial numbers'), and a concrete business context ('during a cycle count'). It also mentions the optional location update, which distinguishes this from generic update_item or search tools. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on physical verification rather than acquisition, disposition, or general updates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'during a cycle count' implies a clear use context, but the description does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like update_item. There is no mention of exclusions or sibling routing, so the agent must infer applicability.

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