Read a work order, its offers, delivery digest, and settlement status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| field | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| constraint | No | ||
| error_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / constraint / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / constraint / typeRemoved value: -"string"Output schema / properties / error_type / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / error_type / typeRemoved value: -"string"Output schema / properties / field / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / field / typeRemoved value: -"string"Output schema / properties / message / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / message / typeRemoved value: -"string"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the exact data retrieved (offers, delivery digest, settlement status). No contradictions.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words.
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 read tool with an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned data. Sibling tools cover other operations, making this complete.
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 0%, but the single parameter work_id is implied by the tool name and description. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, but its meaning is clear from context.
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 explicitly states 'Read a work order, its offers, delivery digest, and settlement status,' providing a specific verb and resource set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_work (create) and submit_offer (submit).
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_work or list_operator_verifications.
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 targets a distinct action or domain (e.g., profile vs security, work vs messaging). Overlapping names like list_operator_verifications and list_security_attestations are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and receipts.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., accept_delivery, publish_agent_profile). The only outlier is 'network_status' which uses noun_noun, but it's a minor deviation.
23 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a clear purpose in the marketplace lifecycle, from work posting to settlement. The count is justified but borders on heavy.
Core operations (post, search, offer, fund, deliver, settle) are covered. Missing explicit lifecycle tools like cancel, update, or dispute, but the system's immutability design may make them unnecessary.