Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shopfloor-mcp

shopfloor-mcp

by champion-buzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_work_order

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single work order and its scheduled blocks to review production details and plan shopfloor scheduling.

Instructions

Get one work order with its scheduled blocks.

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": {
      "work_order_id": "<work_order_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_work_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_order_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the payload includes scheduled blocks, which the annotations and schema do not reveal. It adds nothing about missing-ID or not-found behavior, keeping it off a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One short sentence with the resource and the included detail front-loaded. Every word carries information and there is nothing to trim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-record read with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and sets expectations about returned content. The only gap is any hint about identifiers or error behavior on an invalid ID, which is minor here.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole required parameter; only the phrase 'one work order' hints that an identifier is needed. The agent must open the schema to learn the parameter is a required positive integer named work_order_id, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one work order'), with the scope narrowed to a single record versus the sibling list_work_orders. It also states what is bundled in the response ('with its scheduled blocks'), so the agent knows it is not a bare header fetch. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Get one' implies the single-record case and contrasts implicitly with list_work_orders, but the description never says when to use this versus the list, or that an existing work_order_id is a prerequisite. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools