Retrieve one consignment's totals and product lines by consignment ID, with optional product inclusion, to review specific shipment details.
One consignment with its totals and (by default) its product lines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| consignment_id | Yes | ||
| include_products | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that product lines are included by default, but it does not cover error behavior, authentication, or other operational details.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core return scope and default behavior.
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?
With an output schema and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it remains thin on usage guidance and parameter semantics, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting between this and list_consignments.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely addresses include_products by saying product lines are included 'by default', and it provides no meaning for consignment_id beyond the parameter name.
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 clearly identifies the resource and cardinality: 'One consignment with its totals and (by default) its product lines.' This implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_consignments tool, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or name the sibling.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_consignments or other siblings. The phrase 'One consignment' implies retrieval by ID, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.