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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which is clear, but fails to mention critical aspects such as authentication needs (implied by 'integration_key' parameter), rate limits, error handling, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise and well-structured in a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specifics on included data fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and data fields but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide usage, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the tool can use 'ID or order ID' to retrieve shipment details, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., how 'integration_key' relates to authentication or the format of IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific shipment by ID or order ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('shipment'), and scope ('detailed information'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_shipments' or 'track_shipment' beyond mentioning the included data fields.

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 by stating it retrieves information 'by ID or order ID,' suggesting it's for specific shipments rather than listing all. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_shipments' (for bulk retrieval) or 'track_shipment' (for tracking updates), and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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