list_disposition_itemsRetrieve all items associated with a specific disposition record using its GUID to review included firearms or inventory.
List the items on a disposition. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | GUID of the disposition. | |
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / accountAdded 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"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's only behavioral statement, 'Read-only,' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain openWorldHint, pagination, response shape, or any other runtime behavior, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the operation. The second sentence, 'Read-only,' is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but the structure is clean and free of filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list with one required parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, the absence of return-format or pagination information and the lack of guidance on alternatives leave moderate gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents id as the disposition GUID and account as an optional account selector. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'List the items on a disposition.' This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_disposition or add_disposition_items, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_disposition, search_dispositions, or list_4473_dispositions. The phrase 'List the items on a disposition' states the operation but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.