Search and filter imported Tokopedia orders by keyword, status, and pagination. Use it to find specific purchases or review order history from your local import.
Search and filter imported orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that—no default page size, no ordering of results, no note on whether status/query combine as AND or OR filters.
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 short sentence with nothing wasted and the action front-loaded. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy—there is too little content for a four-parameter search tool.
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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums, and zero per-parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine valid status values, filter combination logic, or result shape from either the description or the schema.
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 0% across all four parameters, so the schema supplies only types and bounds—not meaning. The description vaguely maps "search" and "filter" to query/status but gives no syntax, matching semantics, or status value vocabulary, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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 pair ("search and filter") and resource ("imported orders"), which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate from siblings get_order or list_shipments, nor clarify whether "imported" is a data-source scope or an order state.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_order for single-record retrieval, and no note on pagination behavior despite limit/offset params. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.