booqable_get_orderFetch one order with its totals, deposit and payment state, sideloading the customer and order lines by default (override with include, e.g. customer,lines,payments,documents,notes). Booqable: GET /api/4/orders/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated relationships to sideload, e.g. customer,lines,payments,documents,notes,start_location. | |
| order_id | Yes | The order id (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds real behavioral context: it declares which relationships are sideloaded by default (customer, lines) and how to override that default. It does not cover auth requirements or response shape depth, keeping it short of a 5.
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 tight sentences with the primary action and returned data front-loaded, followed by the override mechanism and an API reference. No filler, every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned data (totals, deposit, payment state) and default sideloads. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the exact sideload default for the payment/document relationships could be tighter.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by disclosing the default inclusion behavior ('customer and order lines by default') and listing valid sideload values, which the schema only generically hints at.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one order') and enumerates the returned payload fields (totals, deposit, payment state). The singular 'one order' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_orders without needing the schema.
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: when you have an order_id and need the full record. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_orders or update_order, nor any stated prerequisites or rate-limit caveats.
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.