giftroam

Get order status

get_order_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Customer-facing status, ETA window and next action for an order. Requires the buyer's order token (delivered after payment) — the token is the credential; never guess or enumerate tokens. Never returns address, phone or payment details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locale`	No	Language of the conversation with the user (e.g. he-IL, fr-FR). Localizes content and messages; prices and availability are unaffected.
`order_token`	Yes	The order token from the buyer's confirmation (GR-XXXXX-…). Never guess tokens.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gift`	No
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed
`locale`	No	BCP-47 locale the texts are localized to
`status`	No	Machine status, e.g. confirmed \| on_the_way \| delivered \| needs_attention
`country`	No
`updated_at`	No
`next_action`	No
`display_text`	No	Human-readable one-line summary of the result
`status_label`	No
`delivery_date`	No
`estimated_window`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the important behavioral boundaries: the token is a credential that must never be guessed or enumerated, and the response deliberately omits address, phone, and payment details. This is high-value behavioral context that structured annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the required credential, and the privacy guarantee. There is no repetition of annotation values, no fluff, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Given the schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, this description is largely sufficient for selecting and calling the tool. It explains the input, the credential requirement, and the output boundary. A short pointer to sibling-tool alternatives would make it even more complete, but the absence does not leave a major operational gap.

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?

The input schema already documents both order_token and locale with full descriptions. The description adds meaningful context around the token being a credentialed order-token handed to the buyer, but it does not substantially enrich locale semantics or other parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a customer-facing order status, ETA window, and next action, tied to the buyer's order token. It is much more specific than a tautology and conveys what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like check_delivery, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a hard prerequisite: the buyer's order token is required and must not be guessed. That helps an agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly explain when this tool should be chosen over list_my_orders, check_delivery, or get_gift_details, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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

All giftroam tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: searching gifts, checking delivery, creating checkout, fetching details, looking up order status, and listing orders are all conceptually separate. Minor potential confusion exists between check_delivery and get_gift_details since both surface delivery-window information, but their primary purposes differ clearly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: check_, create_, get_, list_, search_. The naming style is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer each tool's function.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped set for a gift-delivery e-commerce server. Each tool represents a meaningful step in the customer journey from search and eligibility to checkout and order tracking, without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: search, view details, check delivery, create checkout, list orders, and check order status. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit cancellation, returns, or order modification tools, but the publicly-facing purchase journey appears complete for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?