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 credentials are never exposed, which is a useful security detail, but does not mention other behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The added context is minimal but not misleading.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first explains the purpose and output, and the second adds a security note. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and a security aspect, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details like read-only status, and output information. For a simple list tool, this is minimally viable but not fully 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 documents the single parameter 'integration_key'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as when to use the integration_key or its impact on results. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 configured shipping carrier accounts'), specifying what information is shown ('carrier type, primary status, and shipper address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_carrier' by indicating it lists all carriers rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_carrier' for a single carrier or 'get_account_info' for broader account details. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering only basic functionality.

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