imd_order_statusCheck the current status of a quoted or paid order by supplying its order ID to confirm payment and order progress.
Experimental: Experimental, commissioned as a test of the IMD swarm. It may not work as described. Read the code, start with small amounts, no warranty. GET /requests/{id} — current status of a quoted/paid order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | Order/request id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful risk context: experimental, may not work as described, no warranty. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any notion of what the status payload contains, leaving real gaps for a chain that involves quoted/paid orders.
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 risk warning is front-loaded and the endpoint/purpose is stated compactly. There is minor redundancy in the duplicated 'Experimental: Experimental' prefix, but no sentence is otherwise wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate, and the experimental caveat is well placed. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned status fields or the quoted/paid lifecycle, which it does not.
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% and the single orderId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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+resource: it retrieves the current status of a quoted/paid order, and names the underlying endpoint GET /requests/{id}. It is distinguishable from siblings like imd_quote and imd_pay, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against them.
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 mentions reading the code and starting with small amounts, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to imd_quote, imd_pay, or imd_job. There is no explicit condition telling the agent when this status check is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.