list_ordersRetrieve orders for the current Printful store and filter them by status, such as draft, pending, fulfilled, or canceled, with pagination via limit and offset.
List orders for the current store. Filter by status (for example draft, pending, fulfilled, canceled). limit max is 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds store scoping and the limit cap of 100, which is useful context, but says nothing about default page size, pagination behavior, or result ordering for a list operation.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filtering and the limit cap. Mostly efficient, though restating the limit maximum of 100 duplicates what the schema already declares in its maximum constraint.
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 simple read-only list with three optional params and no output schema, the essentials are present: scope, filterable field with examples, and the page-size cap. Missing only pagination/offset guidance and return-shape hints, which are minor for this complexity level.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds real value by enumerating status values (draft, pending, fulfilled, canceled) where the schema has no enum, and restates the limit maximum. However, offset is entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List orders for the current store.' This clearly separates it from get_order, create_order, and cancel_order by operation type. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the verb+scope combination is unambiguous.
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 mention of status filtering suggests when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_order or other listing tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the basic use case but is given no routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.