Find linked orders for a set of customers, or linked customers for a set of orders, with duplicate results removed. Pivots the customer-order relationship from either side.
Follow customerOrders from a set of Customer or Order. Duplicate target identities are removed. Direction is required when both ends have the same type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| direction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior: duplicate target identities are removed and direction is conditionally required. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output shape is returned, or any side effects, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 core action: 'Follow customerOrders from a set of Customer or Order.' The two additional sentences add relevant behavioral constraints without padding. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
The tool has two parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be nearly self-sufficient. It fails to define pks, explain forward/reverse direction semantics, or describe the result format. The deduplication note helps, but an agent cannot reliably determine the full call contract from this description.
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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains that source can be a set of Customer or Order and mentions direction's conditional requirement, but it does not clarify the meaning of pks, the values forward/reverse, or how direction affects the result. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call based only on this description.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Follow customerOrders from a set of Customer or Order.' It also states a key behavior: duplicate target identities are removed. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling traverse_customer_orders, which may perform a similar traversal, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose pivot over traverse.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus its alternatives such as traverse_customer_orders or the various union/intersect tools. The only usage-related detail is the conditional requirement that direction is needed when both ends have the same type, but this is not contextualized as a tool-selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.