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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that a POST is used for a read-only call, that results are per-item with individual success flags, and that missing orders return ERR_ORD_NOT_FOUND instead of failing the whole call. That partial-failure contract is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from the schema.
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 what is fetched and how, then the failure semantics, then the endpoint mapping. Every sentence carries unique information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the per-result success flag and the not-found error code. Combined with the batch limit, identification keys, and endpoint mapping, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 there is only one array parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by restating that orders may be targeted by either orderNo or id and by surfacing the 500-item cap prominently in prose.
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 (full order data) plus the exact fields returned (location, time windows, assignment, loads, skills, contact) and the identification keys. This clearly separates it from sibling optimoroute_search_orders, which would be the discovery-oriented counterpart.
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 implies usage (you already have orderNo/id values and want full order detail) but never states when to use this instead of optimoroute_search_orders or optimoroute_get_routes. No prerequisites or exclusions are spelled out, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
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.