SkyFi MCP Server

list_orders

Retrieves a user's historical orders from SkyFi. Filter by date range and status to find specific past orders.

Instructions

List the user's historical orders with filters for date range and status. Use this when the user asks about their past orders or order history.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`status`	No	Filter by order status
`date_range`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the read-only scope by saying 'user's historical orders', but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, default ordering, or response shape. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. There is slight redundancy between 'historical orders' and 'past orders', but overall it is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description omits critical details like pagination semantics and return format. The agent cannot fully understand how to use page/limit or what the response will contain, so the tool is under-described.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description merely mentions 'filters for date range and status', which is already evident from the schema. It doesn't explain the meaning of page and limit parameters, which are effectively undocumented. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'user's historical orders', with specific filters for date range and status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_status, which presumably targets a single order.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides a direct use case: 'Use this when the user asks about their past orders or order history.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_order_status for single order status, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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