get_purchase_order_detailsLook up a purchase order by PO number or ID and return comprehensive details including lines, supplier, warehouse, shipments, and totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| po_id | No | The purchase order ID to look up (use if PO number is not available) | |
| po_number | No | The purchase order number to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful payload context by enumerating the returned sections (lines, supplier, warehouse, shipments, totals), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits not-found/error behavior.
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 with no filler; the retrieval action and returned fields are stated immediately with zero 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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by listing the returned sections, while annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only edge behavior such as invalid identifiers or missing POs.
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 both params are well documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates that a PO number or ID can be used, adding no format, precedence, or fallback detail beyond what the schema already says.
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?
States a specific verb (look up) and resource (purchase order) plus the identifiers accepted and the payload returned (lines, supplier, warehouse, shipments, totals). It implicitly separates itself from search_purchase_orders (single-record lookup vs search), but never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for fetching one known PO by number or ID. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to search_purchase_orders for list-style queries, so routing between the two is left to inference.
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.