Stowage factor SF = cargo volume (m3) / cargo mass (tonnes), with classification against the IMO CSS Code Table 4.1 reference ranges for wood cargoes (sawn timber, tropical logs, plywood...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tonnes | Yes | Total cargo mass in metric tonnes | |
| volume_m3 | Yes | Total cargo volume in cubic metres |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation and classification, but does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns the SF value, the classification, or both), rounding behavior, or any edge-case handling. For a calculation tool, this is a significant gap that could lead an agent to assume an output structure that is not guaranteed.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core formula and then adds the classification detail. There is no fluff or repetition; every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.
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 two-parameter calculator, the description covers the calculation and classification context. However, it does not specify the output format or what the tool actually returns (e.g., just the SF number, or also the IMO classification). Without an output schema, this missing detail leaves an agent uncertain about the result structure, so the description is not fully complete.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the formula (volume/mass) and the classification context, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. This extra semantic context helps the agent understand the relationship between the parameters and the intended use, so it adds value beyond 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 states a specific calculation (volume/mass) and a classification step against IMO CSS Code Table 4.1 for wood cargoes. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by naming the exact domain (wood cargo stowage factor) and the reference standard, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from other calculators.
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 usage for wood cargo stowage factor calculations and classification, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is so specific that an agent would naturally select it for this task, and no sibling tool covers stowage factor. It provides clear context (wood cargoes, IMO CSS Code) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
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.