Lista pedidos do vendedor conectado (GET /orders/search?seller=). Paginado. Filtros opcionais: order.status (paid, confirmed, cancelled...), sort (date_asc/date_desc), q (busca).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool is paginated and lists filters, but does not detail pagination limits or default behavior. It provides minimal extra context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable given the annotations cover key traits.
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 primary action and then filters. Every word contributes value, with no irrelevant details. It is concise and well-structured.
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 list operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and some filters, but lacks details on limit/offset defaults, the account parameter, and response behavior. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.
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 the description must compensate. It explains status, sort, and q, giving examples for sort values, but leaves limit, offset, and account unexplained. This partial coverage is helpful but incomplete, resulting in a moderate score.
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 clearly states it lists orders of the connected seller, specifies the endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools like mercadolivre_get_order by indicating a list action and seller scope. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
While the purpose implies usage for listing orders, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as mercadolivre_get_order for single orders or mercadolivre_list_items. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.