Skip to main content
Glama
ztemerbekov

A1 Yandex KIT MCP

by ztemerbekov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List orders

list_orders
Read-only

Get store orders sorted newest first; supports pagination, CSV export, and data redaction. Partial coverage warnings prevent claiming incomplete listings as complete.

Instructions

List orders of the store (paginated), newest first. The response carries a machine-readable coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read); coverage:"partial" MUST be reflected in the user-facing answer and forbids claiming the listing is complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoFetch all pages via auto-pagination, up to 500 items; ignores page/per_page.
pageNoPage number, starting at 1 (default 1).
fieldsNoCSV columns; only valid together with format:"csv". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.
formatNoOutput format: "csv" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading "# coverage:" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.
redactNoUse redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with "[redacted]". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.
per_pageNoItems per page, 1-100 (default 25). Values outside the range are clamped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "CSV columns; only valid together with format:\"csv\". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Output format: \"csv\" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading \"# coverage:\" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.",
+  "enum": [
+    "csv"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / redact
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read) and the mandatory rule that partial coverage must be reflected in user-facing answers. It also discloses the newest-first ordering.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the critical partial-coverage constraint, which is exactly the behavioral detail an agent must not miss.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the response coverage envelope and warns about partial results. Combined with the detailed parameter schema, the agent has enough information to call the tool correctly; only minor details like default pagination size are left to the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List orders of the store' with clear scope ('of the store'), plus ordering ('newest first') and pagination. This distinguishes it from single-order tools like get_order and customer-scoped tools like get_customer_orders.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies this is the paginated listing endpoint for store orders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_order or get_customer_orders. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools