ecwid_get_orderGet a single order by its order number, including line items, totals, customer, and payment/fulfillment status. Ecwid REST: GET /orders/{orderNumber}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_number | Yes | Order number (the store-visible order id). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a safe read operation via 'GET'. It adds useful context about the returned order contents but does not disclose other behavioral details like authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the operation and resource first, then summarizes the response contents, then gives the corresponding REST endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the lookup key, indicates the endpoint, and summarizes the returned data. It does not explicitly mention alternate tools for searching, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and rich annotations.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including clarification that it is the store-visible order id. The description only restates 'order number' without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single order by its order number'), and it lists what is included (line items, totals, customer, payment/fulfillment status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools such as ecwid_search_orders.
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 phrase 'single order by its order number' implies the tool is appropriate when an exact order number is known, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ecwid_search_orders for finding orders by criteria, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., get by ID vs. search/list, adjust inventory vs. update order). The prefix `ecwid_` plus verb-noun structure makes boundaries clear, and no two tools appear to perform the same task.
All tools follow the `ecwid_<verb>_<resource>` pattern with verbs like get, list, search, adjust, update. The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific API covering products, categories, customers, orders, coupons, and store profile. Each tool has a clear purpose and the set is well-scoped without redundancy.
The set covers read operations well but lacks create/update/delete for most resources (products, categories, customers, coupons). Only inventory adjustment and order status update are provided as mutations, leaving significant gaps in lifecycle management that an agent would likely need.