Detail of one order of this customer, including its items and status.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"order_id": "<order_id>"
},
"name": "get_my_order"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by disclosing the payload ('including its items and status') and implying the result is scoped to the calling customer's own orders, but says nothing about behavior when the order_id belongs to another customer or does not exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Detail of one order of this customer') costs a point but nothing is redundant.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and whose data it returns. The remaining gap is failure behavior for invalid or foreign order IDs, which is minor at this complexity.
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% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the load. It only implies that 'one order' is identified somehow; it never says the parameter is an order ID, that it must be the caller's own order, or what happens with an invalid ID.
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 resource and scope: detail of ONE order belonging to 'this customer', including items and status. That verb+resource+scope combination is clear and implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling list_my_orders, but it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiates.
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?
Usage is only implied: the singular 'one order' suggests a follow-up lookup after listing orders, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_my_orders or how to obtain the order_id in the first place. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.