Shipi MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions filtering, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs (though 'integration_key' param hints at this), error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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 perfectly concise - two clear sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second adds the key capability. It's front-loaded with the essential information and every sentence earns its place.

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 (list operation with filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks information about behavioral characteristics, output format, and usage context that would be helpful for an AI agent. The high schema coverage helps, but the absence of output information and behavioral context keeps this from being complete.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the filtering capability ('Filter by type') which aligns with the 'type' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 verb 'List' and resource 'all saved addresses from the address book', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other address-related tools like 'get_address' (singular) and 'add_address'/'edit_address'/'delete_address' (mutations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_shipments' or 'list_shipments' which might also involve addresses, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 for retrieving addresses with optional filtering by type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_address' (for a specific address) or 'search_shipments' (which might include address data). It mentions filtering capability but doesn't specify prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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