Retrieves a paginated list of the authenticated user's eSIM orders and history. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional page number (defaults to 1). | |
| limit | No | Optional number of orders per page (defaults to 20). | |
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement (valid session token) and the paginated nature of the result. It stops short of rate limits or ordering behavior, but the added auth/pagination context is solid.
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, front-loaded with the core action and then the prerequisite. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the resource scope, auth prerequisite, and pagination, which is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only ordering or filtering behavior is left unspecified, which is minor.
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 page, limit, and token are all already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'paginated' and the session token merely restates what the schema provides, adding no syntax, defaults, or format detail. 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 states a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (paginated list of the authenticated user's eSIM orders and history). The scoping to the authenticated user's own orders clearly separates it from siblings like get_wallet_transactions, get_esim_catalog, and cancel_order without opening another schema.
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?
The description gives a prerequisite ('Requires a valid session token'), which is useful context, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_wallet_transactions or cancel_order. Usage is only implied by the 'authenticated user' scoping.
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.