Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Dispose as destroyed

dispose_destroyed

Record destroyed dispositions for inventory items with destruction date, description, and witnesses. Dry-run preview by default; set confirm:true to commit.

Instructions

Record and commit a destroyed disposition for inventory items. Provide destruction date, description, and witnesses. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesDisposition date (ISO, required).
noteNo
itemsYesInventory items destroyed.
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
confirmNoSet true to actually execute. Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview that sends nothing.
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.
externalIdNo
destroyed_DateNo
destroyed_Witness1No
destroyed_Witness2No
destroyed_DescriptionNo

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: dry-run by default, confirm required to execute, and the explicit 'Write' flag. This is important for an agent to understand side effects. Annotations destructureHint=false do not contradict the description.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The trailing 'Write.' is borderline redundant but not harmful. Overall it is efficient.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling group, this description is too sparse. It does not describe return values, the dry-run preview shape, or how this tool relates to pending/committed dispositions. An agent would need to inspect schemas or make assumptions to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 45%, and the description does not compensate enough. It mentions 'destruction date, description, and witnesses' but omits the required 'items' parameter, and does not clarify the relationship between the required 'date' and optional 'destroyed_Date'. Several parameters like account, auditUser, externalId, and price receive no description-level guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Record and commit a destroyed disposition') and identifies the resource ('inventory items'). The destroyed disposition type is clear from the tool name and description, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dispose, dispose_nfa, or dispose_theft_loss.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides operational guidance ('Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_pending_disposition, commit_disposition, or dispose. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is mentioned.

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