purchase_order_listList purchase orders newest first: id, supplier, order and expected delivery dates, status open, partially_received or received, currency, total and received date. Filter by status, supplier or date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | YYYY-MM-DD, latest order date | |
| from | No | YYYY-MM-DD, earliest order date | |
| status | No | Default "all" | |
| supplier | No | Only orders to suppliers whose name contains this text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description ('List purchase orders') implies a read-only operation, while the annotation readOnlyHint is explicitly false, indicating the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction between the description and annotations, so this dimension is scored 1.
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?
Two sentences deliver the ordering, output fields, and available filters with no filler. The key action and ordering are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.
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?
The description lists the returned fields and filter options, providing enough context for a list tool with all optional parameters and full schema coverage. It omits pagination or limit details, but these are not essential for a basic call.
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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description only restates the filter categories without adding new parameter-level detail, meriting the baseline 3.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('List purchase orders') and enumerates the output fields, ordering, and filters. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like purchase_order_get and purchase_order_create.
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 verb 'List' implies this tool is for retrieving multiple purchase orders, and the filter options clarify scope, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of purchase_order_get or purchase_order_pdf. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.
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.