Search for orders by applying custom criteria, including text queries and pagination controls. Retrieve matching order records directly from the BoondManager API.
Search orders by criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that the tool searches. It does not mention pagination, filtering semantics, read-only nature, result shape, or any other runtime behavior.
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 with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a restatement of the tool name. Being terse is not effective when it omits almost all decision-relevant information.
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?
Given three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, a single generic sentence is far from complete. The agent cannot determine how to construct a query, what limit/page defaults are, or what the response will contain.
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%, and the description does not compensate. 'Criteria' vaguely gestures at the query parameter, but page and limit are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance for any 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 identifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('orders'), so an agent can tell it apart from create/update/get tools on the same resource. However, 'by criteria' is vague and does not say what kinds of criteria are supported, making the purpose only vaguely defined.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_orders_get or the many other *_search tools. The phrase 'by criteria' implies flexible search usage, but no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.