Skip to main content
Glama

Nuvemshop

by io.github.mcp-dir

nuvemshop_orders_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Leitura de pedidos da loja Nuvemshop. Ações:

  • list: pedidos paginados (params: page, per_page, status, payment_status, shipping_status, created_at_min, updated_at_min, q).

  • get: pedido por id (requer order_id).

[Flattened action: get]

Bulk support: accepts order_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
pageNo
statusNo
accountNo
order_idNo
per_pageNo
order_idsNo
created_at_minNo
payment_statusNo
updated_at_minNo
shipping_statusNo

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds batched execution via order_ids but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively short but poorly structured with a numbered list and a confusing flattening note. It could be clearer and more organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and overlapping sibling tools, the description should cover return values and bulk execution behavior. It does not, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing parameters for list and get actions. However, it does not explain formats (e.g., dates, statuses), leaving some gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it reads orders with list and get actions, but it's ambiguous whether both are supported or only get (flattened action). The sibling tool nuvemshop_orders_list exists, causing overlap confusion.

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?

It lists parameters for list and get actions but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the sibling list tool, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nuvemshop toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality, especially the get/list pairs for customers, orders, and products which have identical descriptions except for the default action. The multiple order write tools (cancel, close, fulfill, etc.) also share the same underlying description, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix patterns: some use simple <resource> (nuvemshop_categories), others use <resource>_<action> (nuvemshop_customers_get), and others use <resource>_write_<action> (nuvemshop_orders_write_cancel). The get/list split for customers, orders, and products is inconsistent with the categories tool which lacks such a split.

Tool Count2/5

With 24 tools, the server has an excessive number for its scope. Many tools are redundant (e.g., separate get and list tools for each resource, and individual write tools for order status transitions). Consolidating these would reduce the count and improve usability.

Completeness3/5

The server covers the main e-commerce resources (categories, coupons, customers, orders, products) with read and write operations. However, there are gaps: no ability to create or delete customers, delete products, or delete coupons. The set is workable but not fully comprehensive.

Resources