get_shipmentsRead customer shipment pack lines (ShipDtls) for an Epicor order using OrderNum. Supports read-only shipment review without writing to CustShip.
Read customer shipment pack lines (ShipDtls) for an order. Never writes CustShip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_num | Yes | Epicor OrderNum. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_num | Yes | ||
| shipments | 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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with "Never writes CustShip" and names the table it reads, which adds entity-level detail beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about permissions, volume, or result shape.
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, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by the write-safety guarantee. Nothing is padding.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what is read, the scope, and the read-only guarantee, leaving only minor gaps such as ordering/pagination behavior.
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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Epicor OrderNum."), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description corroborates that the read is scoped "for an order" but adds no format or boundary detail beyond that.
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 and resource: read customer shipment pack lines (ShipDtls) for an order. The underlying entity is named concretely (ShipDtls), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_sales_order, but the resource is unambiguous enough to keep them apart.
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?
"For an order" implies the tool is used when you have an order number and need its shipment lines, which is reasonable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.