Conduit Agentic Commerce

Record a purchase order

inventory_purchase_order

Idempotent

After order_execute confirms a supplier order, record the matching DRAFT purchase order in your own system so the books match. Always a draft: a person confirms it there. Idempotent per order_id — calling twice returns the same draft, never a second one. Needs both inventory and checkout permission. Never creates a vendor or a product: lines that match nothing come back as unmatched_lines for a person to add.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent id; needs both inventory and checkout permission
`order_id`	Yes	Conduit order id of a supplier order already placed with order_execute
`connection_id`	No	Which connected system, when the org has several
`session_token`	No	Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`next`	No
`unit`	No
`draft`	No
`error`	No
`total`	No
`detail`	No
`vendor`	No
`currency`	No
`order_id`	No
`quantity`	No
`replayed`	No
`external_name`	No
`supplier_order`	No
`unmatched_lines`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / next / properties / args / additionalProperties / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / next / properties / args / additionalProperties / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
AddedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: 'calling twice returns the same draft, never a second one', 'Always a draft: a person confirms it there', and unmatched lines return for human handling. These details go beyond the structured hints and materially help an agent predict side effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and sequence, and each sentence adds meaningful context. Minor redundancy exists—'Always a draft' repeats the DRAFT emphasis and the permission requirement repeats the schema—but overall it is compact and well-organized.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description covers the critical workflow context: prerequisite, draft status, idempotent behavior, permissions, and boundary of responsibility. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter fully. The description reinforces permission requirements and the order_execute relationship, but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a DRAFT purchase order after order_execute confirms a supplier order. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like order_execute by scoping to the internal draft record and explicitly stating it never creates vendors or products.

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 states the exact precondition ('After order_execute confirms a supplier order') and clarifies what the tool does not do ('Never creates a vendor or a product'). It implies the alternative context (order_execute for placing the supplier order) but doesn't explicitly say 'use X instead', so it falls just short of full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Conduit Agentic Commerce tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?