Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Dispose (NFA)

dispose_nfa

Record and commit NFA dispositions for inventory items, with a dry-run preview by default and confirm:true to execute.

Instructions

Record and commit an NFA disposition for inventory items. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesDisposition date (ISO, required).
noteNo
otsnNo
ttsnNo
typeYesNFA disposition type (required). See list_smartlists DisposeType.
itemsYesInventory items in the NFA disposition.
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.
contactNoInline new recipient contact (alternative to contactId).
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.
contactIdNoExisting recipient/buyer contact GUID.
externalIdNo
generateTTSNNo
invoiceNumberNo
submissionDateNo
contactExternalIdNo
purchaseOrderNumberNo
shipmentTrackingNumberNo

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation, the description usefully discloses that the tool is dry-run by default, that confirm:true is the commit gate, and that it performs a write. This is valuable safety-relevant behavior, though it does not describe what happens after commit or the preview return format.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the critical dry-run/confirm behavior, then the write nature. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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?

Given the high parameter count, nested contact object, and lack of an output schema, the description provides only the most essential safety context. It covers dry-run behavior and NFA scope, but does not explain preview output, disposition type sourcing, contact selection, or how to choose among disposition-related siblings. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 about 44%, and many parameters like otsn, ttsn, note, invoiceNumber, and generateTTSN have no descriptions. The description only adds meaning around the confirm parameter, which the schema already covers, so it does not compensate for the low-coverage parameters.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Record and commit'), the resource ('an NFA disposition'), and the scope ('inventory items'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dispose or dispose_destroyed, but the NFA qualifier makes the tool's domain reasonably clear.

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 description implies this is for NFA dispositions and gives the operational key detail that confirm:true is required to actually execute. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over the many disposition-related siblings, nor does it state when-not-to-use it.

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