Retrieve open work orders to view the current maintenance backlog. Identify overdue work and plan workload by filtering by crew or work type.
Fetch all open (not completed/closed/cancelled) work orders — the current maintenance backlog. Useful for workload planning and identifying overdue WOs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crew | No | Filter by crew (optional) | |
| limit | No | ||
| worktype | No | Filter by work type (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Fetch') but does not explicitly state it is side-effect-free. It clarifies the status filter but does not mention the limit parameter's behavior, pagination, or response format. For a simple read, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a brief use-case note. It is concise with no redundant words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should convey what the response contains. It does not mention fields returned, ordering, or pagination behavior. The use-case hint is helpful, but for an agent to call it correctly, it would benefit from knowing the limit default and the nature of the returned work orders. For a simple list, this is partially complete.
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 67% – crew and worktype have descriptions, but limit does not. The description does not mention any parameters or add context beyond the schema. Since coverage is below the 80% threshold, the description should have compensated by explaining the limit parameter, but it does not, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('work orders') and clarifies the status filter ('open (not completed/closed/cancelled)'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_overdue_work_orders by indicating it returns all open work orders, not just overdue ones, and adds context with 'maintenance backlog'.
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 description gives clear use cases: 'Useful for workload planning and identifying overdue WOs.' This implies when to use it, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the sibling get_overdue_work_orders exists, the description could be more explicit about routing, but the provided context is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.