Retrieve an existing lunch order in editable form to prepare updates. Use student, event, or order ID to fetch current order details for modification.
Get an existing order in editable form — the model mhlb_update_order expects back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | No | Lunch event id. | |
| orderId | No | Order id, when you have one. | |
| studentId | No | Student id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the returned data is specifically formatted for editing, which is useful context beyond the annotation. It also subtly hints at a workflow relationship with update. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a meaningful contextual note about the update tool. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool is a simple read operation with readOnlyHint true and all parameters optional and documented, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its role. The 'editable form' detail is important and covered. It might have noted the required parameter combinations, but the schema handles that. Overall, adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (eventId, orderId, studentId) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Get an existing order') and adds an important qualifier ('in editable form') that distinguishes it from other get tools like mhlb_get_cart or mhlb_get_order_form. It also clarifies the purpose by noting it feeds into mhlb_update_order. This effectively differentiates it from 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 implies the tool is a prerequisite for mhlb_update_order, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like mhlb_get_order_form or mhlb_get_cart. There is a clear implied usage but no explicit exclusions, so slightly less than perfect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.