growwer_get_orderFetches one fully purchased order by ID, including its briefing, draft, and state history, to review complete order details.
Use this when you need one order the user bought in full: its briefing, its draft and its state history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful composition detail by naming the payload sections (briefing, draft, state history). It says nothing about failure modes such as an unknown id or cross-buyer access.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the usage condition first and then the payload. No repetition of the title, no filler.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description does outline return contents, which is helpful. It still leaves the identity of the id and error behavior unspecified, so an agent cannot fully call it without guessing.
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 0% and the sole 'id' parameter is completely undocumented, so the description must compensate. It implies that the id addresses one purchased order, but never specifies the id format or whether it is a buyer order id versus a seller order id.
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 states a specific retrieval: one order 'the user bought', including its briefing, draft and state history. The buyer framing implicitly separates it from the seller-side siblings like growwer_get_seller_order, but it never names that counterpart explicitly.
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?
'Use this when you need one order' sets a context but offers no exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer on its own when to prefer growwer_list_orders or growwer_get_seller_order over this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.