Fetch detailed information for a specific purchase order, with options to include vendor, location, and line items.
Get detailed information about a specific purchase order
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Related data to include (e.g., vendor, location, lines, lines.product) | |
| purchaseOrderId | Yes | The purchase order ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Get" implies a read, but it does not state what "detailed information" includes, whether the optional include parameter triggers extra queries, or what the response looks like for a tool with no output schema.
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 efficient sentence with no filler and the key scoping qualifier front-loaded. It is appropriately sized but arguably too sparse given the undisclosed include behavior.
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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the notable include-expansion behavior and the returned detail level unexplained, which an agent would want to know before calling.
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%, so both purchaseOrderId and the include array (with its vendor/location/lines nesting hints) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (purchase order) with a scoping word ("a specific") that implicitly separates it from list_purchase_orders. However, it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from get_sales_order or get_manufacturing_order, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_purchase_orders, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that a valid purchaseOrderId must come from the list call). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.