Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-cha-cha

mcp-cha-cha

by danny-sbr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_orders

Retrieve orders from a tea shop by ID, buyer name, pickup status, or date. Leave parameters empty to get all orders.

Instructions

查詢訂單。可依訂單 ID 精確查找單筆訂單，或依訂購人、領取狀態、日期等條件篩選。無參數時回傳全部訂單。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo依日期篩選，格式為 YYYY-MM-DD，例如 2026-03-19
order_idNo指定訂單 ID，查詢單筆訂單詳情（有值時忽略其他篩選參數）
picked_upNo篩選領取狀態：true 已領取、false 未領取
person_nameNo依訂購人姓名篩選

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '查詢' indicates a read-only operation, and it explicitly discloses that no parameters returns all orders and that order_id overrides other filters. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or output format, but these are less critical for a simple query tool.

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?

The description is two short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists usage modes without any filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, fully described parameters, and clear sibling differentiation, the description covers all invocation modes: exact ID, filters, and no-parameter listing. The absence of return-value details or pagination behavior is a minor gap but does not hinder correct selection or invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only summarizes the filter options and does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the specific verb-resource pair '查詢訂單' (query orders) and clearly distinguishes exact-ID lookup from filtered listing. This is clearly distinct from the sibling mutation tools (create_order, pickup_order, cancel_order) and other resources (get_menu, recommend_drinks).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage contexts: exact order ID, filtering by purchaser/pickup status/date, and a no-parameter fallback that returns all orders. It does not explicitly state 'use X instead for mutations,' but the sibling tool names make those exclusions obvious.

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