Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@opensmm/mcp-server

@opensmm/mcp-server

Official
by opensmm-protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Request a refill

request_refill
Idempotent

Requests a refill for a completed or partial order whose service supports refills. Submit the order ID to restore missing results without creating a new order.

Instructions

Request a refill for a COMPLETED or PARTIAL order whose service supports refill.

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": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>"
    },
    "name": "request_refill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful eligibility constraints, but it does not explain what a successful refill does (for example, whether it creates a new order), what error occurs for an ineligible order, or whether there is any cost or authorization requirement.

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?

The description is a single well-formed sentence with the core action and eligibility conditions front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main eligibility rules but omits the meaning of orderId and the outcome of a refill request. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps that the schema and annotations do not fill.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the sole parameter. It refers only to 'order' and never explains that orderId must match the ^osmm_order_ pattern or what format is expected, adding almost no meaning beyond the schema property name.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Request a refill') and resource ('order'), and it distinguishes this from create_order or cancel_order by scoping it to refills. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states clear eligibility conditions: the order must be COMPLETED or PARTIAL, and its service must support refill. It does not mention what to do when those conditions fail or which alternative tool to use instead, so it is not fully complete.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools