mu_order_advanceMove an order one step in the lifecycle: ordered→production→shipped→completed, or ordered→refund_pending (lot expiry / human judgment), refund_pending→refunded (human recorded refund). Backward/skipped transitions are rejected. Production is blocked while lot_lock=true until the lot fills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order id. | |
| note | No | ||
| status | No | New status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses allowed transitions, rejection of backward/skipped transitions, and the lot_lock blocking condition. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent key operational constraints, though it does not mention return values or errors.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, transition paths are listed compactly, and constraints are stated in the final sentence. Every clause adds necessary operational information.
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 covers the core transition rules and the lot_lock constraint well, but it leaves ambiguity about the optional status parameter: does calling without status auto-advance one step, or must status always be supplied to specify the target? The note parameter's role is also unexplained. Given no output schema, this missing nuance could cause an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.
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 67% (id and status documented, note not). The description adds meaningful context around the status parameter by explaining each enum value's role in the lifecycle, but it does not clarify the purpose of the optional 'note' parameter or resolve whether 'status' is required for the transition or inferred automatically.
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 precise verb ('Move') and resource ('an order') and specifies the exact lifecycle transitions allowed. It clearly distinguishes this advancement tool from sibling tools like mu_order_status by focusing on state changes rather than status reads.
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 establishes a clear usage context: advancing an order one step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the transition rules and lifecycle framing imply the tool's intended scope. Sibling tool names like mu_order_status provide enough contrast for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.
The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.
The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.