Skip to main content
Glama
tzangms

shopline-mcp

by tzangms

get_order_transactions

Retrieve all payment transactions for a specified order, including amounts, statuses, and payment methods. Use for reconciliation and financial verification.

Instructions

【用途】取得指定訂單的所有付款交易紀錄,包含付款金額、交易狀態、付款方式等,適合對帳與財務核查。

【呼叫的 Shopline API】

  • GET /v1/orders/{order_id}/transactions

【回傳結構】 { "order_id": str, # 查詢的訂單 ID "total": int, # 交易筆數 "transactions": [ # 交易列表 { "id": str, # 交易 ID "kind": str, # 交易類型(sale, refund, void 等) "status": str, # 交易狀態 "amount": float, # 交易金額(TWD) "gateway": str, # 付款閘道 "created_at": str, # 交易時間 ... # 其他欄位依 API 回應而定 } ] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
order_idYes訂單內部 ID(由 query_orders 回傳的 id 欄位,非 order_number)
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior; it includes the HTTP GET endpoint and a detailed return structure, which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state permissions, error cases, or side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, API, return structure) and no redundant text. The JSON example is succinct and informative, earning a high score.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description compensates with a return structure outline and a usage context. It lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but for a simple read-only GET tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The sole parameter order_id is already fully described in the schema (internal ID from query_orders, not order_number), and the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves all payment transaction records for a specified order, enumerating key fields (payment amount, status, method). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_order_detail or get_refund_summary, which focus on different aspects.

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 description explicitly mentions that it is suitable for reconciliation and financial audits, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not, however, name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tzangms/shoplinemcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server