Skip to main content
Glama

Optional: Standing order, history and drift baseline

get_standing_order
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a standing order with its renewals, drift baseline, next delivery date, versions, and rules. Use it to review recurring purchases and compare current terms against the original baseline.

Instructions

A standing order with its renewals (newest first, simulated ones marked) and the drift baseline. Returns {standing_order, renewals, baseline, next_delivery_date, versions, rules}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "standing_id": "<standing_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_standing_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_tokenNo
standing_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesYes
baselineYes
renewalsYes
versionsYes
standing_orderYes
next_delivery_dateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine nuance beyond that — renewals returned newest first and simulated entries flagged — but the trailing field list largely duplicates the existing output schema. It says nothing about failure behavior when standing_id is unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents. The final enumerated field list is arguably wasted space given a dedicated output schema exists, but overall there is little padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Not really 5 — correction below.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. Neither standing_id nor the optional agent_token is explained — notably agent_token has no stated purpose, format, or whether it is required for authenticated/on-behalf-of lookups.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (a standing order) and its scope (renewals plus drift baseline), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings such as get_order or get_mandate, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than get_order, get_mandate, or list-style siblings. The only usage signal is the generic 'get' verb, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.