shoptet_list_ordersList recent Shoptet e-shop orders with IDs, dates, statuses, totals, shipping, payment, and sales channel while excluding customer personal data.
Recent orders: id, code, date, status, total, shipping, payment, sales channel. Customer names, e-mails and addresses are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee: customer names, e-mails and addresses are never returned, which tells the agent not to plan on PII enrichment. It does not disclose how many records come back by default or how 'recent' is computed.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler: the returned field set comes first, then the privacy constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs, especially since no output schema exists.
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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is essential and is done well; the PII exclusion is a valuable extra. What's missing is default result size/ordering and any hint about the limit parameter's effect, which matters for a list tool.
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% — the single 'limit' parameter has bounds only, no description. The tool description never mentions limit, defaults, or the relationship between limit and the 'recent' window, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List orders') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from the product/coupon/banner siblings. It stops short of a 5 because 'recent' is never defined — no time window, default ordering, or default count is given.
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 order-specific sibling to disambiguate against, and 'Recent orders' implicitly scopes usage to the latest records rather than a historical lookup. However, nothing states when to prefer this over a filtered/date-range query, nor any prerequisite or pagination strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.