foran_track_orderTrack an order's status using an order ID; logged-in customers provide a session key, while guest orders require the phone number used at checkout.
Status of an order. Logged-in customers pass session_key; guest orders need the phone number used on the order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | For guest orders: the contact phone on the order. | |
| order_id | Yes | ||
| session_key | No | For orders placed with a Foran account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication model (session_key for account holders vs phone for guest orders), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior when credentials don't match, rate limits, or what the status payload 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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The first sentence is arguably too terse to be useful, but nothing is wasteful or buried.
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?
Absent an output schema, the description should convey what a caller gets back; "status of an order" is thin on that. With three params, two auth modes, and several near-duplicate siblings, the definition covers credentials but not the distinguishing context an agent needs to call the right tool confidently.
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?
The schema already documents phone and session_key (67% coverage); the description only restates that pairing in slightly different words and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail. The required order_id has no description anywhere, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the name.
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?
"Status of an order" names the resource and the kind of result, but it is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the title "Track an order." It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as foran_order_status, foran_order_details, and foran_my_orders, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.
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 description gives a real conditional rule for invocation: logged-in customers use session_key, guest orders use phone. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the very similar sibling tools (foran_order_status, foran_order_details), leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.