sellsy_get_orderGet one order by id. Needs orders.read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order id. | |
| embed | No | Related objects to include (each may need an extra scope and is null without it), e.g. ["invoicing_address","main_contact","cf.1542"]. | |
| field | No | Only return these fields, e.g. ["id","name"] or ["address.id"], to keep replies small. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the orders.read scope requirement (useful auth context), but says nothing about not-found behavior or that embed targets silently null out without extra scopes.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the permission requirement; nothing is wasted. It is arguably terse rather than optimally sized, since the optional parameters go unmentioned.
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 simple by-id read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is close to sufficient. Gaps: no statement of error behavior on an unknown id and no mention of the embed-triggers-extra-scope caveat that a caller may need to interpret the schema note 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 description coverage is 100%, so id, embed and field are already fully documented with examples and constraints. The description contributes nothing about the optional embed/field parameters, so the baseline of 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 ("Get one order by id"), which cleanly separates it from list_orders and search_orders siblings by scope. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
"Needs orders.read" gives the required permission, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over sellsy_search_orders or sellsy_list_orders, nor what happens with a bad or missing id, leaving selection guidance implicit.
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.