my_ordersList the signed-in user's purchases on SuperCatch, newest first: order id, status, item count, total, and date. Requires connecting a SuperCatch account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return (1-50). | |
| cursor | No | Continue with nextCursor from the previous page, keeping the same status and limit. | |
| status | No | Only return orders in this status. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Continue with nextCursor from the previous page, keeping the same status and limit.",
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: newest-first ordering, the returned field set, and the account-connection requirement that gates invocation.
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, zero filler, with the result shape and ordering front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and pagination semantics live in the parameter descriptions. For a simple read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 each parameter (limit, cursor, status enum) is already documented, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds 'newest first' ordering context but no meaning beyond the schema for any individual parameter.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('the signed-in user's purchases on SuperCatch'), ordering (newest first) and the exact fields returned. The 'signed-in user's' scoping cleanly separates it from the sibling store_orders and my_watchlist without needing either schema opened.
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?
Gives a clear usage context plus a hard prerequisite: 'Requires connecting a SuperCatch account.' It doesn't name when-not conditions or point at an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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.