Retrieve complete details for a work order by number, including labor, materials, costs, failure codes, and dates to support maintenance analysis and reporting.
Get full details for a single work order by WO number, including labor records, materials, costs, failure codes, and all dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wonum | Yes | Work order number e.g. WO-10042 |
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 mentions what data is returned but discloses no behavioral traits beyond the obvious read action: no error handling, permissions, rate limits, or return format. 'Full details' is a claim about content, not behavior. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the action ('Get full details for a single work order') and then efficiently enumerates the included data areas. No filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.
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 is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), yet the description lists the major content categories, which helps the agent anticipate the response. However, it omits details like response structure or error behavior, and without output schema or annotations, the description alone is only moderately 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 coverage is 100% – the wonum parameter already has a clear name and example (WO-10042). The description adds no new parameter details, essentially repeating 'by WO number.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding semantic value beyond it.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves full details for a single work order by WO number, and explicitly lists the included data categories (labor, materials, costs, failure codes, dates). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_work_orders (likely list-level) and get_cost_analysis (cost-specific). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage: get this when you need full details for one work order by number. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for a list use get_work_orders'), leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.