Retrieve a single order's customer, status, and notes by order ID. Read-only; returns no order <id> if the ID is missing.
Look up one order's customer, status and notes. Read-only; changes
nothing. Returns no order <id> if the ID doesn't exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The order's ID, e.g. '4417'. Use list_orders to find one. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / order_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The order's ID, e.g. '4417'. Use list_orders to find one."v1.0.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.