List the standard container, truck, ULD and pallet types LoadingMCP can plan loads into, with internal dimensions (mm) and max payload (kg).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool lists but does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, absence of side effects, or any limitations. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but minimal; it could be improved by adding 'does not modify any data' or similar.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates what the tool does and what it returns, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and output content (dimensions and payload), which is sufficient for a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. It could mention that omitting category returns all types, but the schema already implies the filter is optional, so the description is adequately 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%: the only parameter 'category' is fully described with an enum and 'Optional category filter'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states the verb 'List' and the specific resource (standard container, truck, ULD and pallet types) along with the output content (internal dimensions in mm and max payload in kg). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_containers or plan_load, which have different purposes.
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 'LoadingMCP can plan loads into' gives useful context: this tool lists the equipment types supported for load planning. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks direct comparisons with sibling tools.
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 operation: listing equipment, suggesting containers, computing a 3D load plan, and exporting the plan. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g., export_plan, list_equipment, plan_load, suggest_containers.
4 tools is well-scoped for container loading: listing equipment, planning loads, suggesting containers, and exporting plans. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy.
The set covers the full workflow: equipment discovery (list_equipment), rough estimation (suggest_containers), detailed planning (plan_load), and final export (export_plan). No obvious gaps for the domain.
