debridge_order_status
Status of a deBridge DLN order by orderId.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| orderId | Yes |
Quietwork Swap
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "properties": { + "orderId": { + "type": "string" + }, + "status": { + "type": "string" + }, + "track": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "orderId", + "track" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Added
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does a poor job: it does not say the call is read-only, whether status is polled until filled/refunded, whether a missing order errors or returns an empty status, or whether it works across all supported chains. Only the word 'Status' hints at the operation's nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scoped to the protocol, with zero filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally even though the content is too thin overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and a one-parameter lookup is simple. However, with no annotations and an undocumented orderId format, an agent cannot confidently supply the id or interpret failure cases from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the definition needs to explain orderId. It only says 'by orderId', repeating the parameter name, and gives no hint whether this is a deBridge order id, a hash, or which chain's id to use for a multi-chain DLN order.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: returns the status of a deBridge DLN order, keyed by orderId. That distinguishes it from the build/quote siblings, though it never explains how it differs from cow_order_status or shift_status, which serve the same lookup role for other protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to call this versus the sibling status tools (cow_order_status, shift_status) or when a status lookup is warranted at all. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the one required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.