Generate the shipping label PDF for one or more orders. REQUIRES the FULL pipe-suffixed order ids (order-xxx|123) — stripped ids are rejected upstream. Returns a temporary URL (valid ~10 minutes) where the PDF can be downloaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Label size, default "normal" | |
| printer | No | Label format, default "proship" | |
| order_ids | Yes | FULL pipe-suffixed order ids |
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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a temporary URL (valid ~10 minutes) for PDF download, which is key behavioral info. However, it does not state whether the tool is destructive (e.g., consumes the label or marks orders) or if authentication/rate limits apply, preventing a perfect score.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose, critical requirement, and return value are all front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, input constraint, and return type well. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid order id behavior, label generation failures) which could be useful for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters and defaults. The description adds the critical constraint about pipe-suffixed ids and the PDF return URL, but does not explain the effect of size or printer options beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool generates a shipping label PDF for one or more orders, specifying the exact resource (shipping label) and action (generate). It distinguishes from siblings like get_order and list_orders by focusing on label generation.
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 explicitly states the required format for order IDs (pipe-suffixed full ids) and warns that stripped ids will be rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives for printing labels, but given the sibling list contains no other print-related tools, this is sufficient guidance.
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.