kite-connect-mcp

Order history

get_order_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve every status an order went through, oldest first, with each step’s status_message to audit or debug the order lifecycle.

Instructions

Every state an order went through (put order req received, validation pending, open, complete, rejected...), oldest first, with the status_message of each step.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_order_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	the order_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: chronological ordering and the presence of status_message per step, but it does not explain error behavior for an unknown order_id or the full response shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core behavior and includes just enough example states to make the output content clear.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read-only history tool, the description conveys the essential return content, ordering, and per-step status message. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema exists, so the remaining gap around error behavior is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single order_id parameter, though only as 'the order_id'. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states that it returns every state an order went through, oldest first, with each step's status_message. This is a specific resource and content description, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_orders or get_order_trades.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description: an agent can infer this tool is for inspecting an order's status progression. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives versus related tools like get_orders.

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