Retrieves a work order row by WO number and optional folder, returning type, max hours, MU/GA approvals, and build year so invoices can be validated against contract terms.
One row of the work order export (type, max hours, MU and GA approvals, build year).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wo | Yes | ||
| folder | 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no read-only statement, no not-found behavior, no permission requirements, no pagination or scoping notes. Mentioning the fields returned is the only behavioral hint.
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?
It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but the parenthetical field list is not front-loaded structure and the fragment lacks a clear subject-verb framing, making it under-specified rather than efficient.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover return format, safety, and parameters. It only lists some returned fields and leaves the 'folder' parameter, error behavior, and read-only nature unaddressed.
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%, so both parameters need explanation. The phrase 'work order export' weakly implies 'wo' is a work order identifier, but the optional 'folder' parameter is completely unexplained 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?
The fragment 'One row of the work order export' describes the return shape (a single work order row) more than the action, but an agent can infer a single-record fetch. It does not name the identifier-based retrieval explicitly nor differentiate from siblings beyond being the only work-order tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings like list_invoices or check_invoice. Usage is only obliquely implied by the word 'One row'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.