ze_track_orderCheck the current status of a Zé Delivery order by entering its order ID. Get updates on order progress without GPS polylines or courier phone details.
loadOrder(orderNumber). Status only. Does not return GPS polylines or courier phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful scope of 'Status only' and what is not returned, but does not describe response details, auth needs, or rate limits. This adds context without contradiction.
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 very concise and front-loaded with the essential 'Status only' point. The 'loadOrder(orderNumber)' fragment is somewhat opaque and adds little clarity beyond the schema, but the overall length and structure are efficient.
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 read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the meaning or effect of privacy_mode, what the status response contains, or how this tool relates to ze_order_history. The missing parameter guidance and return details leave clear gaps.
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 mentions 'orderNumber', which loosely maps to order_id, and provides no explanation of privacy_mode or response_format. This is insufficient for three parameters.
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 tool retrieves status for an order ('Status only') and explicitly excludes GPS polylines and courier phone, which makes the core purpose clear. It does not name or differentiate against sibling tools directly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 'Status only' implies the tool is for simple status lookups, and the exclusions suggest it is not for delivery details. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus ze_order_history or other siblings, nor name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.