Retrieve full details of a Yandex Lavka order by ID, including items, totals, address, status, and payment. Use an order_id from order history or active orders.
Get full details of a specific order: items, totals, address, status, payment.
Pass an order_id from order_history or active_orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The read-only, non-mutating nature is conveyed by 'Get full details' and the list of returned fields, but nothing is said about permission needs, error/not-found behavior, or whether the order_id is scoped to the current user.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, followed by the one operational instruction. No filler.
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 an output schema already defining the return shape, this covers purpose, payload contents, and how to source the id. Minor gaps around not-found or permission failure behavior keep it from being exhaustive.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no inline documentation, but the description compensates by stating the id's provenance ('from order_history or active_orders'). It still omits any format expectations for the id string.
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 full details of a specific order') and enumerates exactly what comes back: items, totals, address, status, payment. Naming order_history and active_orders as the id sources implicitly distinguishes this detail-fetch from those list-style siblings.
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?
'Pass an order_id from order_history or active_orders' tells the agent both the prerequisite and where to obtain the value, which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., that it is not for cart contents or pre-checkout previews, which are handled by view_cart/checkout_preview).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.