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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that results support filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination. It does not detail rate limits, default ordering, or return shape, so it adds value but stops short of rich disclosure.
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?
Three tight sentences: resource first, capabilities second, endpoint mapping last. Nothing is wasted and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and whose safety profile is in the annotations, this is nearly complete. The mention of cursor pagination is the key operational detail an agent needs; return format is not described but no output schema exists to defer to.
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 every parameter (filter, order_by, page_size, page_token) is already documented with examples and constraints. The description restates that filtering/ordering/pagination exist but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('List e-commerce orders'), clearly setting it apart from the contact/company/task list siblings, which cover different resources. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the correct tool for orders purely from the resource noun in the purpose sentence.
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.