Retrieve a single work order by ID, including its complete event history of who did what, when, and why. Use it to inspect status, assignments, and audit details.
One work order with its full history of events (who did what, when, and why).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_order_id | Yes | Work-order id such as WO-2026-0001. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | ||
| work_order | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the return embeds an event history (who did what, when, and why), which is useful content context, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or pagination limits on long histories.
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; every clause (resource, history content, who/what/when/why) earns its place. It is slightly elliptical in omitting an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a read-only lookup with an output schema, complete parameter documentation, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the agent needs to select and call it. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown id handling, history size), which is minor given the output schema.
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 parameter already carries a format example (WO-2026-0001), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented single-param tool.
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?
Names a specific resource (a single work order) and specifies its scope: the full event history with who/what/when/why. The singular framing implicitly distinguishes it from list_work_orders, but it never states its verb explicitly or names a sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as list_work_orders for enumeration. The only routing signal is the implied singular vs. plural distinction, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.