get_orders_summaryOrder volume per channel over a window, across all connected marketplaces. Use it to see where orders are coming from and the relative scale per channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 30). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as the temporal window and aggregation, but no extra traits like data freshness or pagination.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by the intended use. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given a simple one-parameter schema with full coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and when to use it. No further context is necessary.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, which is already described as the lookback window. The description mentions 'window' but does not add syntax or default-value details beyond the schema, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Order volume per channel over a window, across all connected marketplaces.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_channel_orders_overview by emphasizing all marketplaces and relative scale per channel.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Use it to see where orders are coming from and the relative scale per channel.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear.
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.