Retrieve store orders with optional status filtering and pagination to review and manage order data.
Lista pedidos da loja, com filtro opcional por status e paginação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Itens por página (1–100, padrão 50) | |
| offset | No | Deslocamento da paginação (padrão 0) | |
| status | No | Filtrar por status: pending_payment | new | processing | completed | cancelled |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and 'Lista' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation plus that filtering and pagination are optional. It stops short of documenting ordering, default page size behavior, or any auth/scope constraints.
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 sentence with no redundant text. It is efficient, though its brevity means it never develops the pagination or filtering guidance it teases.
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 simple, fully documented 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits what the returned list looks like (fields, ordering, total count) and how pagination terminates, which an agent must infer.
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 100%, including the enum values for status and ranges for limit, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that status filtering and pagination exist, adding no format, default, or interaction details beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Lista pedidos da loja') and names the two modifying dimensions (status filter, pagination). It implicitly distinguishes listing from the single-order sibling novacrm_get_order, but never explicitly routes between them.
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: 'filtro opcional por status' hints at when to filter, but there is no statement of when to use this versus novacrm_get_order or status-mutating siblings like novacrm_update_order_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.