bulk_update_order_draftПоследовательно заполняет редактируемые строки заказа URL, анкорами, окружающим текстом и расписанием. Не отправляет их в работу.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that execution is sequential and that the tool does not submit orders, which is valuable. It does not disclose overwrite/failure behavior or permissions, but it does not contradict annotations.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a crucial side-effect exclusion. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The description covers the main purpose and the no-submit side effect, and the schema plus output schema handle parameter and return-value details. However, it leaves ambiguity about how links map to existing editable rows, whether rows are matched or created, and failure/idempotency behavior—significant for a bulk mutation 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming URL, anchors, surrounding text, and schedule, which maps to the links object's fields. It does not explain order_id or idempotency_key semantics, and it omits the 'type' field, leaving the schema to carry those details.
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?
The description clearly states it 'sequentially fills editable order rows with URLs, anchors, surrounding text, and schedule' and explicitly notes it does not submit them ('Не отправляет их в работу'). This distinguishes the tool from submit_order and submit_link siblings and conveys the bulk draft-editing scope.
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 'not sending them to work' line implies this tool is for draft preparation rather than submission, which is a useful context cue. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention update_link_draft as the single-link alternative.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs (check_registration vs get_account_profile, submit_link vs submit_order) overlap in scope. Descriptions clarify the differences (single vs bulk, status vs full profile), so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (begin_registration, list_orders, update_link_draft). The only slight deviation is 'bulk_update_order_draft' with the 'bulk' modifier, but it still fits the overall pattern.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized service covering registration, orders, links, tariffs, and checkout. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (register, browse tariffs, manage order drafts, submit links) is well covered. Minor gaps like lack of explicit order creation or deletion are likely handled externally or via the checkout process, so agents can still complete key tasks.