get_orderOne of your orders, with its receipt. An order waiting for your owner's approval shows status pending_approval, then paid, declined, expired, cancelled or approval_failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Order id from buy (order_id). | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / order_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Order id from buy (order_id)."Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Leave it out when your MCP app signed in to AgentMart (it is refused then). Otherwise your passport bearer token (amp_...) or session token (amp_s_...), only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header. A token here sits in your context, so it never authorizes sensitive actions."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds domain context by enumerating the order status lifecycle (pending_approval, paid, declined, expired, cancelled, approval_failed), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about what 'receipt' contains or any access constraints.
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?
Two sentences with no padding, but the first is a vague fragment and the second crams a status list into a run-on. It is compact but not especially front-loaded with actionable information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; 'with its receipt' gestures at the payload and the status list hints at outcomes, but it never explains the receipt structure or the relationship to the buy flow. Adequate but with clear gaps for a single-required-param read tool.
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% and both parameters (order_id, passport_token) are fully documented in the schema, including the token's header-vs-parameter usage. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 is a noun phrase ('One of your orders, with its receipt') rather than a specific verb+resource, so the agent infers retrieval from the title 'Show an order'. It gives some scope (an order with its receipt) but does not distinguish this from siblings like get_item, get_job, or get_owner_picks.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_jobs, get_item, or other order-adjacent tools, and no statement of prerequisites. The only hint is the schema note that order_id comes from 'buy', which the description itself does not surface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.