s4_planned_order_listList planned orders with OData support for filtering, pagination, and field selection.
List planned orders. Supports OData $filter/$top/$skip/$select.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| filter | No | OData $filter, e.g. "MRPPlant eq '1710'" | |
| select | 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, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying OData $filter/$top/$skip/$select support, which informs behavior about filtering and pagination. No contradictions. Score is high but not 5 because the description could mention that it returns a list (though implied by name).
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 sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the key capability. Every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
No output schema. The description covers the ability to list and filter, but does not describe what the output contains (e.g., list of order IDs or full details) or any default limits. Annotations provide safety and open-world hints, but the description could be more complete regarding the result structure. Adequate but with gaps.
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 only 25% (only 'filter' has a description). The description says 'Supports OData $filter/$top/$skip/$select,' which provides context that parameters are OData expressions, but does not explain each parameter's meaning or usage beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more fully; it only minimally does so.
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 states the purpose: 'List planned orders.' It also mentions support for OData query options, which distinguishes it from siblings like s4_planned_order_get (single order) and s4_planned_order_create (creation). This meets the 5 criteria of specific verb+resource and differentiation from siblings.
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 usage for listing with filtering/pagination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like s4_planned_order_get. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance or alternative tool names are mentioned. The presence of sibling tools provides some implicit context, but the description itself lacks clear usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.