keap_list_ordersList e-commerce orders. Supports filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination. Keap: GET /orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Filter expression, e.g. `given_name==John` (see Keap REST v2 filtering). | |
| order_by | No | Field to order results by, e.g. `given_name` or `-date_created`. | |
| page_size | No | Number of records per page (max 1000). | |
| page_token | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a prior response's next_page_token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool supports filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination, and identifies the HTTP GET endpoint. It does not describe the response shape, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists capabilities, then gives the endpoint, making it quick for an agent to parse.
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?
For a read-only list tool with four fully documented parameters, the description covers the key invocation details. The lack of an output schema means response shape is not described, but the essential behaviors and endpoint are present.
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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only a high-level mention of filtering, ordering, and pagination, which maps to the existing parameter descriptions without adding new meaning.
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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('e-commerce orders'), and the 'Keap: GET /orders' line reinforces the scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over sibling list tools such as keap_list_subscriptions or keap_list_products. There is no discussion of optionality, prerequisites, or when filtering versus pagination is appropriate.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action: list_* tools are separated by entity, get_* tools retrieve individual records, and create_/update_/apply_ tools perform unique mutations. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools consistently use the keap_ prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern, such as list_contacts, get_company, create_task, and update_contact. The naming convention is uniform across all 18 tools.
At 18 tools, the count falls into the borderline 16-25 range and feels somewhat heavy for a single server. Each tool does have a distinct purpose, but the set is larger than ideal and includes many read-only list/get operations.
Contacts and tasks have reasonable lifecycle coverage, but most other entities such as opportunities, companies, orders, products, and subscriptions are read-only. Notable operations like removing a tag, updating/deleting tasks, and updating opportunities are missing, creating potential dead ends.