get_order_statusesFetch all OpenCart order statuses and their IDs so you can map, filter, or update orders accurately.
List all order statuses with their IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, but this is a 0-parameter read-only enumeration, so most behavioral risk is inherently absent. 'List all' conveys the read-only, exhaustive scope, though it says nothing about ordering, filtering, or caching.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word (verb, scope, returned field) earns its place.
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 0-param reference lookup with an output schema covering the return shape, the description is nearly complete. Only the lack of routing guidance against sibling list/read tools keeps it from full marks.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain.
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 (List) and resource (order statuses) and notes the returned IDs. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like update_order_status, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other read tools such as get_order or get_orders.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. An agent has to infer that this is a lookup/reference call rather than something covered by get_orders or get_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.