get_orderRetrieve full Medusa order details—line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments, and tracking—using an order ID or order number.
Full order detail – line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments and tracking numbers. 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 safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth and nesting of the returned payload (line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments, tracking), which an agent cannot infer from a bare 'get' name. It stops short of describing auth requirements or behavior for missing orders.
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 zero filler; the payload scope is front-loaded and the accepted identifier formats follow. 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 naming the fields returned. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though it omits error/not-found behavior and whether the response is paginated or truncated for large orders.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the same order_/order-number formats the description mentions. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the structured field, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get order') and immediately enumerates what the response covers (line items, addresses, payments, fulfillments, tracking). This clearly separates it from sibling list_orders, which would return many orders rather than full detail for one.
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: call it when you have an order identifier. However, it never states when to prefer it over list_orders or get_customer, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid order ID. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.