get_orderRetrieve details for a specific shop order using its native order ID.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns order by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| order_id | Yes | Native orderId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational fact (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop, with a docs link), but nothing about error behavior, missing-order handling, or return shape.
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 short lines with no filler; the rate-limit note is front-loaded and the purpose statement follows. Slightly terse relative to what a getter could communicate, but nothing is wasted.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description never hints at what an order object contains or what happens on a missing id. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both parameters, the gap is moderate rather than severe.
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 100%, so both order_id and account are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about parameter format or meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns order by id'), which is clear and matches the title. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_order_by_friendly_id, so an agent must infer that this one takes the native orderId rather than the friendly id.
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 on when to use this versus list_orders, get_order_by_friendly_id, or the webhook/report getters. The only context given is a rate limit, which is a constraint, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.