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. It discloses that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), mentions required inputs, and describes the return values (tracking number and label URL). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this action is reversible (e.g., via 'cancel_shipment').

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core action, list prerequisites, and state the return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and return values, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'cancel_shipment'), leaving room for improvement given the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the general categories of inputs (carrier account, addresses, product details) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details. This meets the baseline for 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 ('Create a shipping label') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch_labels', 'get_shipment', or 'track_shipment'. It specifies the exact resource being created and the outcome, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 prerequisites ('Requires carrier account, shipper/recipient addresses, and product details'), which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_shipping_rates' for rate checking before creation).

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