helloasso_get_orderRetrieve detailed order information by order ID, including payer, items, payments, and amounts, with optional form data. Use it to inspect a specific HelloAsso order.
Detailed order by id: payer, items, payments, amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | Order id. | |
| withFormData | No | Include form data. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful context by naming the returned sections (payer, items, payments, amounts), but says nothing about failure modes for unknown ids, permission requirements, or the effect of the withFormData flag.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the payload enumeration is packed into the same sentence. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 usefully names what the response contains, which is the most valuable thing it can do here. The remaining gap is the withFormData option, which is unexplained in both description and (beyond one line) schema, but for a 2-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.
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%: orderId is documented as "Order id" and withFormData as "Include form data." The description's "by id" reinforces orderId but adds no meaning beyond the schema and is silent on withFormData. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.
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?
"Detailed order by id" states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (order) plus the lookup key, and enumerates the payload (payer, items, payments, amounts). This distinguishes it from list_orders, though it does not name siblings 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?
The phrase "by id" implies usage when a specific order identifier is already known, versus the list tool for discovery. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so the routing to list_orders vs get_order is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.