Retrieve a merchant's recent orders across sales channels, with filters for status, date, workspace, and store. Read-only.
List the merchant's recent orders across channels. Read-only.
[#c5f34c]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO date lower bound where supported. | |
| status | No | ||
| workspace | No | ||
| store_uuid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's only behavioral claim, 'Read-only', merely restates the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation, so it adds no value beyond structured data. It discloses nothing about pagination, result volume, or cross-channel behavior despite openWorldHint=true, which the agent cannot act on without more context.
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 are front-loaded and free of filler, but the trailing '[#c5f34c]' token is meaningless noise, and the second sentence duplicates the annotation rather than earning its place.
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 five optional filters, no output schema, and low schema documentation, the description leaves an agent without enough information on how to filter or what to expect in return. It is thin for a listing tool in a dense order-management sibling group.
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?
Five parameters exist with only 20% schema description coverage (only 'since' is documented), yet the description names none of limit, status, workspace, or store_uuid. With coverage this low the description should compensate for scope/filter semantics and it does not.
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 ('List the merchant's recent orders') with a scope qualifier ('across channels') and a recency constraint via 'recent'. It is clearly distinguishable from get_order_details or list_pending_fulfillments, though it never names the sibling it is not.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a sibling set containing get_order_details, get_orders_summary, and list_pending_fulfillments. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.