growwer_get_seller_orderRetrieve one seller order in full, including its briefing, draft, and state history, to review or manage an order placed on a user's media.
Use this when you need one order placed on one of the user's medias 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the composition of the response (briefing, draft, state history), which tells the agent this is a heavyweight full-detail fetch rather than a summary.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the scope and payload. Nothing redundant and nothing padding.
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 read-only single-entity fetch with no output schema, listing the returned components is the right minimum, and annotations carry the safety story. What is missing is the disambiguation from growwer_get_order and the download_* siblings, which is the main failure mode in a 60-plus tool surface.
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%, so the single `id` parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description implies it identifies a seller-side order ('one order placed on one of the user's medias') but never states the id format, whether it is the seller order id or a shared order id, or what happens with an invalid 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?
States a specific verb and resource (get one order placed on one of the user's medias) and enumerates the payload it returns: briefing, draft, state history. That is enough to separate it from list tools, but it never names growwer_get_order, the near-duplicate sibling an agent must distinguish it from.
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 ... in full" gives a positive use condition, implying the list tools are for enumeration. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing between this and growwer_get_order or growwer_download_seller_order_briefing/draft, so the agent must infer the split.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.