Retrieve one Shopify order using its global ID (gid://shopify/Order/...) to get line items, shipping address, and totals.
Get one order with its line items, shipping address and totals. Takes a global ID (gid://shopify/Order/...), which orders_list returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | Which order to fetch. |
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, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful shape-of-result information (line items, address, totals) and constrains the ID format, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the ID-format detail is deferred to the second sentence where it belongs.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description does the work of standing in for an absent output schema by naming what gets returned. Nothing essential is missing, though error/not-found handling is unspecified.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the same gid:// example. The description's mention of the global ID format duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one order') and it enumerates the payload contents (line items, shipping address, totals). An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch, distinct from any list/collection operation.
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 supplies concrete workflow context by noting the required global ID is the one 'orders_list' returns, which tells the agent when this tool fits (after a listing). It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if the ID is unknown, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.