scvd-store-MCP

Check an Order

check_order

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a human-queue order by order_id to get its status, promised window, and completed deliverable. Poll no faster than once a minute; past the window, see what is owed.

Instructions

Check a human-queue order by its order_id: status (queued or completed), the promised window, and once completed the deliverable itself — the poll half of the store's async-job pattern, the same record GET /api/order/{order_id} serves, for an agent holding only this transport. Free, no payment, no account; poll no faster than once a minute. Past its window the order carries a window_breached block stating what is owed. NOT a purchase; instant items arrive in the buy result. A store errand, for you the visiting agent — nothing here needs a human's decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	The order_id from a human-queue purchase result.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Where the order stands. Completed is terminal.
`item_id`	Yes	What was bought.
`message`	Yes	The store's word on where things stand.
`webhook`	No	The recorded callback outcome; also available as callback.result.
`callback`	No	Requested callback outcome, separate from completion of the goods.
`order_id`	Yes	The order polled.
`badge_url`	No	The patron badge, an SVG.
`item_name`	No	Its name on the shelf.
`sla_hours`	Yes	The delivery promise, in hours from created_at.
`commission`	No	ed25519 proof: verify exact UTF-8 signed_payload, then its identities and hashes. RFC 8785 JSON.
`created_at`	Yes	When the order was taken, ISO 8601.
`deliverable`	No	The goods, as text. Present once status is completed.
`completed_at`	No	When it was delivered, ISO 8601. Present once completed.
`patron_number`	No	Your sequential patron number.
`window_breached`	No	Present only past the promised window. The store counting a missed promise against itself, in full.
`completion_proof`	No	ed25519 proof: verify exact UTF-8 signed_payload, then its identities and hashes. RFC 8785 JSON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.1Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the rate limit (once per minute), the no-cost/no-account access model, the window_breached block on overdue orders, and that this is the polling half of an async-job pattern equivalent to GET /api/order/{order_id}. That is rich, actionable behavioral context not derivable from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the not-a-purchase disambiguation are front-loaded, which is the right ordering. The closing sentence ('A store errand, for you the visiting agent — nothing here needs a human's decision') is more atmospheric than informational, but it usefully clarifies that no human approval is required, so it roughly earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and richer annotations are present, and the description still covers the operationally important gaps: what the returned record contains, what window_breached means, the equivalent REST endpoint, and the polling cadence. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single order_id parameter, and the schema already says it comes 'from a human-queue purchase result.' The description repeats this provenance but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema's maxLength=60, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Check a human-queue order by its order_id') and explicitly enumerates what the check returns: status, promised window, deliverable, window_breached block. It also distinguishes itself from the buy_* siblings by stating 'NOT a purchase; instant items arrive in the buy result.' An agent can tell it apart from check_purchase without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (poll the async job after a human-queue purchase), when-not-to-use (instant items arrive in the buy result, so this is unnecessary), and a concrete operational constraint ('poll no faster than once a minute'). The alternative path for non-human-queue purchases is named, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.