ml_enviosRetrieve a MercadoLibre order's shipment status, tracking details, and key dates by order ID, optionally scoping to a specific seller account.
Estado del envío de una orden: tracking, estado y fechas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuenta | No | user_id de la cuenta de ML si hay varias conectadas (ver ml_cuentas) | |
| orden_id | Yes | ID de la orden |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the useful disclosure of what the response contains (tracking, status and dates), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, the multi-account 'cuenta' context, or failure 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves useful routing information out rather than being genuinely complete.
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 lookup with full schema coverage the bar is modest, and without an output schema the description's mention of the returned fields partially compensates. Still, it omits the relationship to ml_ordenes and the meaning of the optional 'cuenta' parameter, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's tracking/estado/fechas list refers to outputs, not inputs, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 resource (el envío de una orden) and enumerates what it exposes (tracking, estado y fechas), so an agent knows this reads shipment status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ml_ordenes, which could plausibly also touch order data.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer ml_ordenes over this tool, and no mention that an orden_id is required to call it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.