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 mentions 'live shipping rates' and 'compare prices,' which suggests a read-only operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication needs (e.g., integration_key usage), rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a simulation or actual booking step, leaving significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and required inputs without any redundant or extraneous information, making it efficient and easy for an 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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and inputs but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral nuances, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly in a shipping 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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'recipient address and package details,' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get live shipping rates') and resources ('from all configured carriers'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique function of comparing prices across multiple carriers (FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS, etc.), unlike tools like 'get_carrier' or 'get_shipment'.

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 context by stating 'Provide recipient address and package details to compare prices,' but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_shipment' or 'track_shipment,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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