Retrieve paid customer orders awaiting shipping and fulfillment for your store, with optional filtering by store ID.
List paid customer orders awaiting shipping and fulfillment for your store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_id | No | Optional store ID filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does 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 implies a read-only listing and scopes the result set to paid, unshipped orders, but says nothing about pagination, sorting, result caps, or whether the response is a snapshot. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse for the behavioral context it omits.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. However, it omits return shape, pagination, and any relationship to the fulfillment workflow, leaving the agent with a 'minimum viable' understanding.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Optional store ID filter'), so the schema already does the work. The description does not add format, default, or multi-store behavior beyond what the schema states, warranting the baseline score.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a well-scoped resource ('paid customer orders awaiting shipping and fulfillment for your store') makes the purpose immediately clear. It implicitly contrasts with the write-oriented sibling 'fulfill_order', but it never names or explicitly differentiates itself from that or other 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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus alternatives like 'fulfill_order' or 'get_store_inventory'. The 'awaiting shipping' qualifier hints at a workflow stage, but no prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.