shop.merchant.orders_listRetrieve your own merchant orders newest first, filter by state or ISO 8601 since date, and paginate results using cursor.
Your own orders (needs orders:read), newest first. Filters: state, since (ISO 8601); pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orders | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: the required orders:read scope, newest-first ordering, and the cursor round-trip convention. It does not cover rate limits or page size caps, which keeps it below a 5.
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: identity/scope/auth first, then filters and pagination. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no padding or repetition.
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?
Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth, filtering, ordering, and pagination fully. The only omission is the limit parameter's role, a minor gap in an otherwise complete definition.
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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it explains 'state' as a filter, gives 'since' an ISO 8601 format, and defines 'cursor' via the next_cursor round-trip. Only 'limit' (1-200) is left to the schema, so it nearly compensates for the coverage gap.
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 ('Your own orders') with scope qualifiers ('own', 'newest first'), which is enough to separate it from catalog and single-order siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
The 'needs orders:read' note and pagination mechanics imply when the tool is callable, and the state/since filters imply the query contexts. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or statement of what happens when no filters are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.