Shipi MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an 'Add' operation, implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the address becomes immediately available, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating usage context, but it efficiently communicates the essential information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication needs (implied by 'integration_key' but not explained), response format, error handling, or side effects. The context signals indicate high complexity, but the description doesn't compensate for missing structured data.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'type' can be 'shipper' or 'receiver' (which is already in the schema). It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Add a new address') and resource ('address book'), with specific purpose for 'saving shipper or receiver addresses for reuse'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_address' or 'delete_address', but the verb 'Add' implies creation rather than modification or removal.

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 mentions the tool is 'Used for saving shipper or receiver addresses for reuse', which provides some context about when addresses might be added. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'edit_address' for existing addresses, or prerequisites such as authentication via 'integration_key'. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.