shipday_get_orderGet the details of a delivery order by its order number (the merchant's reference, orderNumber). Returns an array, since several orders can share one order number. Includes the numeric orderId needed by the write tools, the carrier, tracking link and status. Shipday: GET /orders/{orderNumber}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_number | Yes | The order number (orderNumber) of the order, e.g. "75637". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint the description discloses the non-obvious fact that the response is an array because several orders can share one order number, and it names the key fields returned (orderId, carrier, tracking link, status). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and not-found behavior, keeping it out of the top band.
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: purpose first, then the array-return caveat, then the useful payload fields, ending with the raw endpoint. Nothing is redundant and the scoping caveat 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the array semantics and the important fields. It stops short of describing empty-result or error behavior for an unknown order number, which is the one remaining gap for a lookup tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by identifying the parameter as the merchant's `orderNumber` reference and contrasting it with the numeric orderId returned in the payload. That distinction is the main failure mode for this call and it is explicitly addressed.
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 the details of a delivery order by its order number') and clarifies the identifier is the merchant reference, not the internal ID. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shipday_get_pickup_order or shipday_query_orders, so it falls short of the top band.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention that the response carries the numeric orderId 'needed by the write tools' hints at its role in a lookup-then-act workflow. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer shipday_query_orders or shipday_list_active_orders instead of a direct order-number lookup.
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.