Retrieves details for a specific order, including items, customer, address, and payment, so you can view or verify order data by ID.
Obtém os detalhes de um pedido específico (itens, cliente, endereço e pagamento).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do pedido |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data, which compensates for the missing output schema, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for an unknown ID, or any auth/permission requirements.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the useful return-content parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structural elaboration beyond the single clause.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: that it returns a single order's details and what those details include. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-found handling, permissions).
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?
There is a single required parameter whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' as the order ID. The description adds no format, example, or source hint (e.g., where to obtain the ID) beyond that, which is the baseline case for high schema coverage.
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 ('Obtém os detalhes de um pedido específico') and enumerates the payload it returns (items, customer, address, payment). This clearly separates it from novacrm_list_orders, though it never names that sibling 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: 'específico' signals it takes a single identifier, so an agent can infer it should be used after a list call. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as novacrm_list_orders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.