Статус своего заказа. Нужен вход пользователя и scope checkout.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"order": "<order>"
},
"name": "get_order_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Номер QD-… или uuid заказа |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the authentication and scope requirements, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about failure modes (unknown order id, order belonging to another user) or what a status value looks like.
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, resource first then prerequisite, with no filler. Slightly terse for a non-annotated tool, but well 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with a fully-documented schema, the description covers the essentials plus the auth requirement. It stops short of describing the returned status information, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 parameter is documented there ('Номер QD-… или uuid заказа'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the order identifier format or validation.
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 ('Статус своего заказа') and the possessive 'своего' signals a per-user scope, which distinguishes it from the catalog/cart siblings. No sibling covers order status, so a clear 4 rather than a 5.
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 second sentence gives preconditions (user login, checkout scope), which implies when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over quote_cart or other order-related siblings.
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.