get_purchase_orderGet one purchase order and its lines.
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_purchase_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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one contribution is disclosing the return shape ('and its lines'), which is genuinely useful but thin; nothing about missing-record behavior or permissions.
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. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
Rich annotations and a one-parameter schema lower the burden, and no output schema means return values needn't be explained beyond the passing mention of lines. Still, with 0% schema coverage the description should have qualified order_id, and it says nothing about what happens when the order doesn't exist.
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%, so order_id is documented nowhere — not in the schema, and not in the description. The description never says the ID is required or what format it takes, leaving the only parameter unqualified.
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 verb and resource ('Get one purchase order') and adds that its lines are returned, which distinguishes it implicitly from the list_purchase_orders sibling. It stops short of naming the lookup key, but the single-object scope is unmistakable.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_purchase_orders or search-style siblings, and no preconditions mentioned. The word 'one' hints at by-ID retrieval, but the agent must infer that entirely.
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.