optimoroute_get_ordersFetch full order data (location, time windows, assignment, loads, skills, contact) for up to 500 orders by orderNo or id. Each result has its own success flag; missing orders come back with ERR_ORD_NOT_FOUND rather than failing the call. Read-only despite using POST. OptimoRoute: POST /get_orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orders | Yes | Orders to target, each {"orderNo": "..."} or {"id": "..."}. At most 500. |
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 only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond that: per-result success flags, ERR_ORD_NOT_FOUND instead of a hard failure, and an explicit reconciliation of 'Read-only despite using POST'. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or pagination, 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?
Three tight sentences, fully front-loaded: identity and scope first, then per-result error semantics, then the POST/read-only caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?
With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does: the returned field set, the per-item success flag, and the ERR_ORD_NOT_FOUND behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.
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?
The single 'orders' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the {orderNo}/{id} shape and the 500-item cap. The description restates the lookup keys and limit but adds no syntax or format information beyond what the schema already documents, so 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?
Names a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (full order data) and enumerates the payload fields returned: location, time windows, assignment, loads, skills, contact. The 'by orderNo or id' key-based lookup implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_orders, so an agent can route correctly.
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?
Gives clear implied usage: retrieve full records for a specific set of orders (max 500) identified by orderNo or id. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling alternatives like optimoroute_search_orders or optimoroute_create_or_update_orders, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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.