Check shipping costs for an order before placing it. Avoid chargeable orders that cannot be undone by getting accurate cost estimates upfront.
What an order would cost to ship, before placing it. Worth calling first — placing an order is chargeable and cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shop_id | Yes | Your shop id. printify_get_shops lists them. | |
| address_to | Yes | ||
| line_items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any side effects or behaviors of calling the tool itself. It only mentions that placing an order is chargeable, which is about the order, not the tool. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to state whether the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or has any other behavioral implications.
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 short and to the point, but the first sentence is awkward and grammatically unclear ('What an order would ship'). While concise in length, the structure could be improved for clarity. It is not overly verbose, but the phrasing detracts from its effectiveness.
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 provides some context by mentioning that placing an order is chargeable and cannot be undone, which helps justify the tool's use. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a shipping cost value) or any other details that would help an agent understand the full scope. Given there is no output schema, some explanation of the output would be beneficial. Overall, it is minimally 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?
The schema has three parameters, but only shop_id has a description ('Your shop id. printify_get_shops lists them.'), which is helpful. However, address_to and line_items have no descriptions, and the tool description itself adds no additional meaning to these parameters. With only 33% schema coverage, the semantics are insufficiently explained.
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 'What an order would ship, before placing it', which is ambiguous and poorly worded. It implies a shipping cost estimate but does not explicitly say 'cost to ship'. The context about placing an order clarifies its purpose somewhat, but the first sentence lacks precision.
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 says 'Worth calling first — placing an order is chargeable and cannot be undone', which clearly indicates the tool should be used before placing an order. This provides a concrete usage scenario, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. The guidance is practical and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.