mcp-gatehouse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lookup_order

Read-only

Retrieve a single order's customer, status, and notes by order ID. Read-only; returns no order <id> if the ID is missing.

Instructions

Look up one order's customer, status and notes. Read-only; changes nothing. Returns no order <id> if the ID doesn't exist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	The order's ID, e.g. '4417'. Use list_orders to find one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / order_id / description
```
Added value: +"The order's ID, e.g. '4417'. Use list_orders to find one."
```
First observedv1.0.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; changes nothing' is largely redundant. What genuinely adds value is the disclosed failure behavior: it returns `no order <id>` for a missing ID, which tells the agent how to interpret an empty result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the error behavior follow-up. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-field explanation is unnecessary; the description still covers the one return nuance an agent must know (the 'no order <id>' sentinel). Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single order_id parameter is documented with an example ('4417') and a pointer to list_orders. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (one order) and enumerates the returned fields (customer, status, notes). The word 'one' cleanly separates it from list_orders, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the read-only framing and the singular 'one order', and the schema description points to list_orders for ID discovery. But the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server