search_portsFind ports by name or UN/LOCODE. Busy ports come first, with how many ships are in port, en route and lately departed. Use get_port with a UN/LOCODE for its boards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | At most this many ports. | |
| query | Yes | A port's name or part of it, or its UN/LOCODE. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | Yes | ||
| query | Yes |
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=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are ordered by busyness ('Busy ports come first') and each result carries ship counts in port, en route and lately departed. It doesn't discuss result caps or empty-result behavior, but the ranking disclosure is the important non-obvious trait.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: capability, result shape/ordering, then sibling routing. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description is complete for a two-parameter read-only search. The only small gap is that result-count behavior (default 10, max 20) is left entirely to the schema rather than acknowledged.
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 both 'query' and 'limit' fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates only that query accepts a name or UN/LOCODE, adding no format or matching semantics (substring vs prefix vs case), and says nothing about 'limit'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find ports by name or UN/LOCODE.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_port by framing itself as a lookup-by-text tool rather than a detail-fetch tool.
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?
It names the alternative explicitly and gives the condition that selects it: 'Use get_port with a UN/LOCODE for its boards.' An agent that already has a LOCODE and wants board detail is routed away from this tool without opening either schema.
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.