Retrieve your Vinted purchases filtered by status—in progress, completed, canceled, or all—so you can review order progress and history without performing checkout.
Your purchases and their status (in_progress, completed, canceled or all). Does not perform checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | in_progress |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Does not perform checkout" usefully signals this is a read-only listing with no side effects, but it omits the default filter (in_progress), how paging behaves, and what the response contains.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and status options. There is minimal waste, though the enum restatement duplicates the schema and the checkout clause is of dubious value here.
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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and filter values but leaves pagination semantics, default status behavior, and result shape undocumented.
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 explain both parameters. It expands the status values (in_progress, completed, canceled, all) but adds nothing beyond the enum itself, and the `page` parameter is never mentioned at all.
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?
"Your purchases and their status" states a clear resource (purchases) with an ownership scope ("your"), which implicitly separates it from list_sales and my_items. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 only guidance is the negative clause "Does not perform checkout", which does not route the agent to any alternative (no checkout-style sibling exists in the list). There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_sales, my_items, or search, and no mention of pagination or defaults.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.