purchase_order_getReturn one purchase order in full by id or exact supplier name: buyer and supplier blocks, every line with unit price and VAT, totals, the delivery date, status and every receipt with its date and note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Purchase order id such as PO-2026-0001, or an exact supplier name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the retrieval behavior and the full composition of the returned object, which adds value beyond the all-false annotations. It does not mention not-found behavior or potential duplicate supplier-name issues, but for a simple get operation the disclosed behavior is largely sufficient.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope, then uses a colon-delimited list for the return contents. Every element is informative, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to specify the return contents in detail, covering buyer/supplier blocks, line items, totals, delivery date, status, and receipts. It is complete enough to call successfully, though it does not cover the not-found case or exact-match semantics in depth.
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 100% and the schema already documents that id can be a purchase order id or an exact supplier name with an example. The description reinforces this but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('one purchase order in full'), and it clearly distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing a single order. It also enumerates the exact contents, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool produces.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a full single purchase order is needed by id or exact supplier name. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like purchase_order_list, purchase_order_pdf, or purchase_order_text, so an agent must infer the boundary between them.
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.