List all pending-dispatch and in-progress work orders from the ERP bridge, optionally filtered to a single manager.
List all pending-dispatch and in-progress work orders, optionally filtered to a single manager.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manager | No | Manager name in 'Last, First' format. Omit for org-wide view. | |
| include_in_progress | No | If True, include both pending-dispatch and in-progress work. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned set (pending-dispatch plus in-progress) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result volume, or permissions — meaningful gaps for an unfiltered list endpoint.
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 filler; the resource and its scope lead, and the filter qualifier follows. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-param list tool with no output schema, but with no annotations and no output contract it leaves pagination, ordering, and result-size expectations unspecified.
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 (manager format 'Last, First', include_in_progress default) are already documented. The description only restates the manager filter at a high level and adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the schema, so the 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 verb (List) and resource (pending-dispatch and in-progress work orders) plus the optional scope. It is clearly a collection-read operation, distinguishable from get_work_order and add_closeout_note by implication, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered to a single manager' implies the usage context for the filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling tools (e.g. use get_work_order for a single order).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.