gambot_create_orderCreate a store order by providing customer, items, and total fields. Use this tool to record new purchases in your CRM through Gambot.
Create a store order. Body holds order fields (customer, items, total…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Order fields |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a store order' and lists body fields. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate orders, whether it requires authentication or specific permissions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 short and front-loaded with the action ('Create a store order'). The second sentence adds a useful hint about the body contents. It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the expected structure of the 'order' object, any required fields, or what the response will be. Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter) and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100% for the single parameter 'order', which is described as 'Order fields'. The description adds a little context by listing example fields (customer, items, total), but it doesn't explain the structure of the order object, required subfields, or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a store order') and lists the body contents (customer, items, total). It is clear what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gambot_create_quote or gambot_create_invoice, but the resource name 'order' and the term 'store order' provide enough distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when an order should be created, or how it relates to other order-related tools (e.g., gambot_list_orders, gambot_update_order). The description implies usage by stating 'Create a store order' but provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.