Extract serial numbers assigned to line items on a specific sales order. Use the sales order ID to view all serials tied to that order.
Extract serial numbers (serial numbers) from a specific sales order. Returns all serial numbers assigned to line items on this order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salesOrderId | Yes | The sales 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return content ('all serial numbers assigned to line items on this order') but says nothing about permissions, pagination on large orders, or what happens when an order has no serialized line items, which matters for an unbounded list-style return.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool. The parenthetical '(serial numbers)' immediately after the same phrase is redundant filler, costing it a perfect score.
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 single-read lookup with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and where the data comes from. It is only missing volume/pagination expectations for orders with many serialized line items.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents salesOrderId. The description only implies the parameter via 'a specific sales order' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('extract') and resource ('serial numbers') scoped to a single sales order, which implicitly separates it from the warehouse-wide siblings list_all_serials and search_serial_number. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (get_purchase_order_serials, get_product_serials), so differentiation is left partly to inference.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names the alternative tools (get_product_serials, get_purchase_order_serials, list_serial_numbers) an agent should compare against. The only routing signal is the 'specific sales order' scoping, which is incidental rather than stated as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.