list_ordersRetrieve order history filtered by status, date range, reference, or package, and view a revenue summary. Track, audit, or review eSIM orders.
Order history with filters (status, date range ISO 8601, search by reference / package) and a revenue summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | Default 20 | |
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that a revenue summary is returned, but doesn't mention pagination behavior or default limits beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and compactly lists key features. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 list tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description covers the main functionality but omits pagination details, default limits, and the exact fields in the revenue summary. Adequate but with 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 17%, with only 'limit' having a description (Default 20). The description mentions filters (status, date range ISO 8601, search by reference/package), which helps clarify intended use of parameters, but doesn't fully document all six parameters. Adds some value but leaves gaps.
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?
Clear verb+resource (list orders) with scope details: filters and a revenue summary. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_order, leaving some ambiguity about listing vs single retrieval.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_order. The description only lists capabilities, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.