Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Dispose as theft/loss

dispose_theft_loss

Record a theft or loss disposition for inventory items, with discovery date and incident numbers. Preview changes by default; set confirm=true to commit the write to FastBound.

Instructions

Record and commit a theft/loss disposition for inventory items. Provide discovery date and incident numbers. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesDisposition date (ISO, required).
noteNo
itemsYesInventory items reported stolen/lost.
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
theftLoss_TypeNoSee list_smartlists TheftLossType.
theftLoss_DiscoveredDateNoWhen the theft/loss was discovered (ISO).
theftLoss_PoliceIncidentNumberNo
theftLoss_ATFIssuedIncidentNumberNo

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint: false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that this tool 'Write's, and it explains the dry-run-by-default behavior with confirm:true required to execute. This adds important behavioral context that the schema alone does not provide, though it stops short of describing post-commit consequences.

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 four terse sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by key usage and side-effect information. Every sentence earns its place, including the one-word 'Write.' warning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description covers the core call flow: dry-run, confirm, required inputs, and the write side effect. It does not explain what the dry-run preview returns or explicitly contrast with dispose/dispose_destroyed, but the rich schema and sibling names fill most remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 64%, and the description does compensate for some undocumented parameters by grouping 'discovery date and incident numbers' and by clarifying confirm's role. However, it stays silent on note and externalId, and its instruction to 'Provide discovery date and incident numbers' could mislead an agent into thinking those are required when the schema lists them as optional.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Record and commit a theft/loss disposition for inventory items.' This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like dispose_destroyed and dispose_nfa. The title reinforces the same distinction without ambiguity.

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?

It tells the caller what to provide ('discovery date and incident numbers') and the crucial execution mode ('Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the theft/loss scoping and sibling tool names provide clear context.

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