Read one exact purchase-plan version with selected lines, merchants, totals, risks, evidence, approvals, and checkout handoffs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_plan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_plan | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds context on the response contents. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as versioning semantics, error handling, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Read') and resource, followed by a concise list of included data elements. Every part adds value and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description provides a high-level summary of the tool's function and its return contents, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema and annotations. It lacks explicit usage context or fallback behaviors, but these are likely covered by the schema and annotations for a simple single-parameter getter.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly document the purchase_plan_id parameter. The phrase 'one exact purchase-plan version' indirectly relates to the parameter, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage by explaining how to specify the ID or any constraints.
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 clearly states the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'purchase-plan version', and lists the included components (lines, merchants, totals, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_purchase_plan and other getters by focusing on reading a specific version.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The phrase 'exact version' implies a use case, but it is not stated explicitly.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.