Retrieves complete details for a single purchase order by its ID, including supplier, cost centre, line items, total, status, requester, and approver.
One purchase order: supplier, cost centre, lines, total, status, requester, approver.
Args: po: Purchase order ID, e.g. "PUR-ORD-2026-00012".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| po | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a field inventory of the returned record, but says nothing about not-found/error behavior, permissions, or whether all listed fields are always present.
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 compact elements: a front-loaded field summary and a single argument note. The raw docstring formatting with the trailing newline and indented Args block is slightly unpolished but wastes no words.
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 with an output schema (so return shape is already specified), the definition covers purpose, scope, and ID format adequately. Missing only error/not-found behavior, which is minor given the read-only annotation.
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 coverage is 0% and the 'po' property has no description, so the description carries the burden — and it does so by naming the parameter and giving a concrete ID format example ("PUR-ORD-2026-00012"), which is the key thing an agent needs to format the call correctly.
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 clearly that it fetches a single purchase order and enumerates the fields it returns (supplier, cost centre, lines, total, status, requester, approver). The phrase 'One purchase order' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_purchase_orders, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the required 'po' ID signals a lookup of one known record, which suggests list_purchase_orders when the ID is unknown. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about what happens if the PO doesn't exist, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.