Shipi MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Cancel a shipment and void its label'), which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical traits such as permission requirements, whether the cancellation is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential parameter information. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose and requirement without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), expected outcomes, error handling, and how it differs from siblings. For a tool that performs a significant action like cancellation, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 documents both parameters ('integration_key' and 'shipment_id'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'shipment_id' as required, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as format details or usage context for 'integration_key'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Cancel a shipment and void its label') and identifies the resource ('shipment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_shipment' or 'track_shipment'. It explicitly mentions the outcome of voiding the label, which adds specificity beyond just cancellation.

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 implies usage when a shipment needs to be canceled and its label voided, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to editing or other modifications). It mentions the required parameter 'shipment_id', which provides some context for prerequisites, but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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