Retrieve paginated consumer order history, including cancelled orders, with order status derived from timestamps.
Read paginated consumer order history, including cancelled orders. Status is derived from history timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are paginated and cancelled orders are included, plus a data-semantics note that status is derived from history timestamps rather than stored directly.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core scope constraint is front-loaded. The second sentence on status derivation is useful but slightly disconnected from a listing operation.
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?
With no output schema the description needn't explain return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a list tool with undocumented parameters and many overlapping siblings, the missing usage routing leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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%, so limit and offset carry no semantic documentation. The single word 'paginated' signals that the parameters govern paging, but the description never explains default, maximum, or offset behavior, leaving the schema's numeric bounds to speak for themselves.
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+resource ('Read ... consumer order history') with scope detail ('including cancelled orders'), which distinguishes it from a status lookup. It does not name the sibling get_consumer_order_status or otherwise route the agent, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_consumer_order_status or the cart/checkout siblings. The paginated-history framing only loosely implies usage, and nothing tells the agent when this is the right tool versus a status or search call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.