Xbitto MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Order

get_order

Read-only

Retrieve a single order by its ID, including payment review status when applicable, so agents can confirm or reject payment holds.

Instructions

One order, with the payment under review if there is one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>"
    },
    "name": "get_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orderId`	Yes	The order id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is disclosing that a payment under review may be included in the response. That is genuinely useful return-shape context absent from structured fields, but it says nothing about behavior when no such payment exists or about authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The trailing qualifier "if there is one" is slightly cryptic but carries real conditional information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return expectations, and it only hints at one component (payment under review). It omits what the order object otherwise contains, error behavior for unknown ids, and access requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single orderId parameter is fully documented by the schema's pattern and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, provenance, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"One order" conveys the resource and singular scope, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_orders, and it notes the tool also surfaces a payment under review. However, it never names a verb (fetch/retrieve) or explicitly distinguishes itself from list_orders or get_link, so the purpose is only implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative (list_orders) for enumerating orders, and no prerequisites such as required authentication or ownership of the order. The agent must infer invocation context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.