Shipi MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool deletes an address, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related shipments, or provides confirmation feedback. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core action ('Delete an address') and purpose ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., permanence, permissions), error handling, or what happens post-deletion. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage context.

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 both parameters ('integration_key' and 'id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'id' is used for deletion, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an address from the address book'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit_address' or 'get_address' by specifying the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_address' or 'list_addresses', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid address ID or integration key. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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