hip_get_service_infoWhat Have It Printed does, what it costs, what file types and sizes are accepted, and how mailing works. Needs a Bearer API key, like every tools/call (POST /v1/onboard to get one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a Bearer API key is required for every tools/call, and one can be obtained via POST /v1/onboard. That is useful operational detail annotations cannot express.
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 sentences, with the substantive content (what the tool returns) front-loaded and the auth requirement appended. Nothing is padded, though 'like every tools/call' is a slightly loose parenthetical that could be tightened.
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 no-parameter, read-only info endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately says what the caller gets back in prose. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing among the nine siblings.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially empty object) and the description correctly adds no parameter claims that could conflict with the schema.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: service capabilities, pricing, accepted file types/sizes, and mailing behavior. That is a concrete resource with concrete contents, far beyond restating the name 'Service info'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though the other tools are all distinct actions (checkout, job, quote), so the risk of confusion is low.
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?
No statement of when to call this versus alternatives. It is inferable that this is a first-stop reference tool, but the description never says so, nor does it note any prerequisites or ordering relative to hip_quote, hip_create_job, etc. The auth note is about how to authenticate, not about when to use the 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.