get_ordersRetrieve recent orders from your OpenCart store. Filter by status name (e.g., 'Complete', 'Pending') and set days or limit to control results.
Get recent orders. Filter by status name (e.g. 'Complete', 'Pending'). Default: last 30 days, 20 orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but 'Get' clearly implies a read operation and the default window ('last 30 days, 20 orders') is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits sorting order, whether results are paginated, and any auth or rate-limit constraints, so coverage is only moderate.
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?
Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler: purpose first, then the filter option, then the defaults. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the defaults are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, gaps remain around valid status values, result ordering, and pagination limits, which a caller would need.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map all three parameters loosely (status to a status name with examples, days to 'last 30 days', limit to '20 orders'), but never states that limit is a maximum result count, gives no cap or range, and does not explain how status values are matched.
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 ('Get recent orders') and scopes it to recency, which implicitly separates it from the singular get_order sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation still requires the agent to infer it from the plural/resource wording.
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 tells the agent it can filter by status name and gives example values, which implies the intended usage context. It never states when to choose this over get_order (single order) or how to obtain valid status names (get_order_statuses), so routing guidance is only partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.