Retrieve open work orders with past scheduled finish dates to identify overdue items and support SLA tracking.
Fetch work orders where the scheduled finish date has passed but the WO is still open. Essential for SLA tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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 burden. It discloses the core filtering logic (overdue and open) but omits behavior such as pagination, ordering, or the effect of the limit parameter. The read-only nature is implied by 'Fetch' but not confirmed.
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 sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the SLA context is appended without redundancy. Ideal length for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter and differentiate from overlapping siblings. It explains the filter but leaves the limit parameter undocumented and does not explicitly contrast with get_open_backlog, leaving a notable completeness gap.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent cannot infer what the limit controls (e.g., max results, pagination) from the description, which fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.
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 clearly states the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'work orders', and precisely defines the selection condition: scheduled finish date passed while still open. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_work_orders (all WOs) and get_open_backlog (any open WOs).
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?
It provides a clear use case ('Essential for SLA tracking') that implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it leaves some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.