voucher_ordersFetches paginated voucher orders from Booksy Biz so you can review or report on sold vouchers, with optional cache bypass and page-size controls.
Voucher orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds zero behavioral insight. While annotations specify it is read-only and safe, the description offers no unique context regarding execution constraints, rate limits, or specific operational nuances beyond the title itself.
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?
The extreme brevity (one identical sentence to the title) results in zero structural value. While technically concise, this brevity is detrimental as it conveys no useful information.
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 tool defined with pagination parameters, the description should at least clarify that it is a listing or retrieval function. By offering only the title, it is contextually incomplete.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already details the parameters (pagination, caching, item count). The description does not add semantic meaning or context to these fields, maintaining the baseline score for full 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?
The description is merely a repetition of the tool's title ('Voucher orders'). It fails completely to state *what* action is performed (e.g., listing, retrieving, searching) or what the resulting resource represents.
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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers no context for the agent to make a decision about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.