get_express_delivery_statusWhether Website Express (free same-working-day dispatch for eligible UK orders) is available right now, the order-by cutoff and the promised dispatch date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Storefront locale such as en-GB (default), en-US, de, fr-FR, es-ES, it-IT, nl-NL, pl. Controls product names, slugs and prices. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by clarifying this is a real-time status lookup ('right now') and by listing the conveyed facts. It does not detail edge cases, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.
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 one compact sentence that defines the service, specifies its constraints, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core information an agent needs: what is being checked and what results to expect. It does not explain how to distinguish this from eligibility checks, but that gap is minor given the straightforward purpose.
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 fully documents the single optional locale parameter, including its format, examples, and effects. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource (Website Express) and the specific information returned: current availability, order-by cutoff, and promised dispatch date. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tools like check_express_eligibility, so it misses the top score.
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 description implies the tool is used to check the current availability of Website Express, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as check_express_eligibility or estimate_delivery. An agent is left to infer the correct selection among several shipping-related siblings.
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.