[OBSERVATION TOOL] Return current verified multimodal physical state of a port.
Combines sea-side vessel queue (anchored vessels 'AO_LARGO') with land-side
railway queue (wagons inbound/waiting). Returns sources for full provenance.
Args:
port_id: UN/LOCODE e.g. "BRPNG" (Paranaguá), "BRSSZ" (Santos).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port_id | Yes |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It labels the tool as an observation (implying read-only), states the data is 'current verified', and promises provenance sources in the response. It stops short of detailing latency, refresh behavior, or data limitations, but those are minor for an observation tool.
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 tightly organized into a classification prefix, a short behavioral statement, and a parameter note. Information is front-loaded, no sentence is filler, and the examples are placed exactly where they add value.
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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how the state is composed, and how to encode the argument. Any remaining need for a supported-port list is a natural fit for the sibling list_supported_ports.
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 0% and the schema only exposes a bare 'port_id' field. The description compensates fully by specifying the value format (UN/LOCODE) and giving concrete examples such as 'BRPNG' and 'BRSSZ', which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid argument.
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 opens with an explicit tool-class marker ('OBSERVATION TOOL') and states a specific verb and resource: 'Return current verified multimodal physical state of a port.' It then clarifies what that state consists of (sea-side vessel queue and land-side railway queue), which distinguishes it from risk, trend, and event siblings even without naming them.
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 bracketed 'OBSERVATION TOOL' plus 'current verified' gives a clear context: use this when you need a current physical-state snapshot of a port. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
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.