get_orderRetrieves one order by ID, including status, customer, line items, and total; money values are integer cents (12999 = $129.99).
Status, customer, line items and total of one order. All money values are integer cents (12999 = $129.99).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Order number, e.g. 1007 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| customer | Yes | ||
| createdAt | Yes | ||
| totalCents | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about return content and the money-unit convention (integer cents), but it does not mention error behavior for missing orders or any other operational context.
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 description is compact and the unit clarification is front-loaded after the field summary. It is efficient and free of filler, though the first sentence is a fragment rather than a structured verb-led statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need full explanation, and the annotations cover read-only behavior. The description is complete enough for a simple single-parameter lookup, with the main remaining gap being sibling-based usage guidance.
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%, and the single order_id parameter is already documented in the schema with an example and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the resource and the fields returned: status, customer, line items, and total for one order. It does not name an explicit verb like 'retrieve', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_customer_orders, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description implies a single-order lookup by saying 'one order', but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_customer_orders or other order-related siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.