Retrieve a purchase order by ID with its line items and deliveries to review order contents and fulfillment status.
One purchase order with its line items and deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_lines | No | ||
| purchase_order_id | Yes |
| 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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. The description adds that line items and deliveries are returned, but does not explain how include_lines affects that response.
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 text. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately brief for a simple read tool.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of include_lines and the required purchase_order_id is a meaningful gap.
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 for both parameters. It does not mention purchase_order_id or explain include_lines, even though the latter controls whether line items are returned.
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 the resource precisely: a single purchase order, including its line items and deliveries. That clearly distinguishes it from list_purchase_orders, although it does not name the sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The singular scope implies use over list_purchase_orders when one order is needed, but this is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.