distru_get_orderRetrieve a sales order by its UUID, including line items, charges, and linked invoices, to access all order details in a single request.
Fetch one sales order by id (GET /public/v1/orders/{id}), including its line items, charges, and any linked invoices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The order UUID. |
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 and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes line items, charges, and linked invoices, and that it is a read-only GET operation. No contradictions 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?
A single, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, specifies the endpoint, and enumerates the included data. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description gives all necessary context: what it fetches, how it identifies the order (id), and what is included in the result. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema is needed.
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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' as 'The order UUID' with 100% coverage. The description merely says 'by id' and includes the {id} placeholder, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one sales order by id'), and names the exact endpoint. It also lists the included components (line items, charges, linked invoices), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like distru_list_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?
The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single order when its ID is known, and naming the id parameter reinforces that. It does not explicitly say when to use list_orders instead, but the singular 'one' and the endpoint pattern provide enough context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.