Radar noEixo

List field orders

list_field_orders

Read-only

Lista as ordens de serviço de campo (visitas, medições, instalações), com status, prazo, técnico e — quando houver — o processo e a etapa a que a OS pertence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_field_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Máximo de resultados (padrão 50)
`status`	No	Filtra por status: received \| assigned \| en_route \| in_progress \| waiting_part \| done \| cancelled
`contact_id`	No	Só as OS deste contato
`process_id`	No	Só as OS deste processo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about returned fields (status, prazo, técnico, processo, etapa), but does not go beyond that (e.g., no pagination or permission details).

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the key information. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description lacks disambiguation from the similar list_service_orders tool, which is important for correct tool selection. Otherwise, it adequately describes the output fields, and the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them fully. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by status and contact/process, which is already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('ordens de serviço de campo'), and enumerates examples (visitas, medições, instalações). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_service_orders, which appears similar.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_service_orders or get_service_order. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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

All Radar noEixo 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?