get_orderRetrieve full order details—line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments, tracking, and returns—by order ID or number.
Full order detail – line items, addresses, payments (with captures and refunds), fulfillments, tracking numbers and returns. Accepts an order ID (order_…) or the order number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes | Order ID (order_…) or order number, e.g. 1042 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned payload (payments including captures and refunds, fulfillments, tracking numbers, returns), which is real behavioral value given there is no output schema.
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 tight sentences with no filler: the scope and returned contents come first, the accepted identifier formats second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating what comes back, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens for an unknown or deleted order.
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% and the schema already states the parameter accepts an order ID (order_…) or order number, so the description's identical statement adds nothing beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Full order detail') and enumerates the payload contents (line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments, tracking, returns), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not name the sibling list_orders as the contrasting option, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'Full'.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch the complete record for a single order when you already have its ID or number. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_orders or update_order, and no preconditions or error behavior (e.g., order not found) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.