medusa-mcp

Convert draft order

convert_draft_order

Turn a draft order into a regular order and reserve stock; then record payment with mark_order_paid.

Instructions

Turns a draft order into a regular order (reserves stock). Record the payment afterwards with mark_order_paid.

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": {
      "draft_order_id": "<draft_order_id>"
    },
    "name": "convert_draft_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_order_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 'reserves stock' side effect and the required payment follow-up. It does not state what happens on failure or whether the reservation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, action stated first, follow-up second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect, and the next step. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/already-converted draft, error response), which is a small residual gap.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description technically carries the burden, but it says nothing about draft_order_id. The name and string type are largely self-explanatory, so this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('turns a draft order into a regular order') so the agent knows exactly what mutation occurs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling complete_order, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this step.

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?

The second sentence supplies sequencing guidance by naming the follow-up tool ('Record the payment afterwards with mark_order_paid'), which tells the agent where this fits in the workflow. It still lacks an explicit when-not or a contrast against complete_order/cancel_order.

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