Retrieves paginated purchase orders for a specific ITM Platform project using its project ID, returning items, total count, limit, skip, and hasMore.
Get purchase orders for a project with pagination. Returns { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }. Default limit: 50, max: 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of purchases to skip (for pagination) | |
| limit | No | Max purchases to return (default 50, max 200) | |
| projectId | Yes | The project 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; 'Get' implies a safe read, and it usefully discloses the pagination defaults (50) and hard ceiling (200). It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an invalid projectId, or ordering of results, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the return shape and pagination contract. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the inline return shape { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore } is genuinely valuable and makes the tool callable without guessing at the response. Only sorting and failure modes are left unspecified, which are minor for a simple paginated list.
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 description mostly restates the limit defaults already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning about skip semantics beyond 'for pagination' or about what projectId must reference.
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 and resource ('Get purchase orders') and scopes it to a project, which is more precise than the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_service_purchases, so an agent comparing the two must infer the difference from the names.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to get_service_purchases, get_project_budget, or get_project_revenues. The only implied guidance is 'for a project', which the schema's required projectId already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.