Retrieve pickup, delivery, and shipping fulfillments with current states, optionally filtered by outlet or sale, to track order fulfillment status.
Fulfillments (pickups/deliveries/shipping) with state, optionally by outlet or sale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sale_id | No | ||
| outlet_id | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| page_number | No | ||
| fulfillment_type | No | ||
| fulfillment_state | 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior despite exposing page_size/page_number, does not describe ordering or result limits, and 'with state' is too vague to count as behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries information. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter list tool, but the brevity itself is not waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a paginated list tool with six optional parameters and no schema documentation, the description leaves an agent guessing about paging, the fulfillment_type/state filters, and default behavior.
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 carry parameter meaning. It only touches outlet_id and sale_id (and ambiguously fulfillment_state via 'with state'), leaving page_size, page_number, and fulfillment_type completely unexplained. Two of six parameters covered at zero schema coverage is insufficient.
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?
States the resource (fulfillments) and parenthetically defines the domain as pickups/deliveries/shipping, which is more than the name alone conveys. The verb is only implied via the tool name, but 'list ... optionally by outlet or sale' makes it clear this is a filtered fetch, distinct from siblings like list_outlets or get_sale.
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 phrase 'optionally by outlet or sale' implies the intended filtering scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to call it versus get_sale or search_sales, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.