Retrieve complete order details from Eventbrite, including purchaser information, order status, and financial totals. Use this to review or verify any specific order.
Retrieve details of an order including purchaser info, status, and financial totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Retrieve' signals a non-mutating read and lists which details are returned. It does not mention authorization requirements or not-found/error behavior, but its read-only nature is clear for a simple getter.
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 brief sentence, thirteen words, with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes.
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?
Given a single required parameter and the presence of an output schema, this description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. The main missing pieces are usage guidance versus sibling list tools, which are already penalized under usage_guidelines.
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 never mentions order_id semantics, so the description adds little beyond the parameter name. However, the single required parameter is self-explanatory from its name and title, keeping the gap minor.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve details of an order' and names the returned content (purchaser info, status, financial totals). It clearly suggests a point lookup rather than a list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling order-list tools.
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?
No guidance is given on when get_order should be chosen over list_event_orders, list_organization_orders, or list_user_orders. The singular 'an order' and required order_id imply a point lookup, but the description never states this or any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.