Retrieve full details for a single order—line items, payment and fulfillment status, shipments, and tracking—using its order UUID. Read-only lookup for order support and tracking.
Full detail for one order: line items, payment + fulfillment status, and shipments/tracking. Read-only.
[#c40849]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | ||
| order_uuid | Yes | The order uuid (from list_my_orders). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The description does disclose the returned content areas (payments, fulfillment, shipments), but says nothing about auth, pagination, or behavior when the order is missing.
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?
The core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing '[#c40849]' artifact is stray, non-semantic noise that clutters an otherwise clean definition.
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-value burden and does name the main content areas, which is adequate. However, the undocumented workspace parameter and lack of any access/scope notes leave it short of fully complete for a detail-fetch 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 only 50% - order_uuid is documented but the workspace parameter is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented workspace argument.
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+resource ('Full detail for one order') and enumerates the returned facets (line items, payment + fulfillment status, shipments/tracking). This differentiates it from thin status siblings like check_order_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 by the framing 'Full detail for one order' - an agent can infer this is the deep-dive read vs. list_my_orders or check_order_status, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.