linnworks_find_orders_by_referenceFind orders by their channel reference number (for example an Amazon or eBay order number) or secondary reference. Returns at most 50 orders. GET /api/Orders/GetOrderDetailsByReferenceId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | The reference number or secondary reference to look for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond that ('Returns at most 50 orders') plus the REST endpoint, but says nothing about what is returned when no match exists or about pagination/result shape.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the lookup semantics, then the result cap, then the endpoint. Nothing redundant and no filler.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, identifier semantics, the 50-result cap, and the underlying endpoint. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on no match, whether matching is exact or partial), which are not critical for correct invocation.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The reference number or secondary reference to look for.' The description adds the example reference formats (Amazon/eBay), which is mildly useful but does not extend beyond what the schema conveys. Baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Find orders by their channel reference number') and clarifies the identifier type with concrete examples (Amazon/eBay order number, secondary reference). It implicitly distinguishes itself from linnworks_find_order_by_number by scoping to channel references, but never names or contrasts that 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?
The description makes clear when the tool is applicable (you have a channel/secondary reference), which is implied usage guidance. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative routing, even though siblings like find_order_by_number and search_processed_orders cover adjacent lookup scenarios.
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.