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 pagination and filters but fails to describe critical behaviors such as response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements (though 'integration_key' hints at it), or whether this is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 that front-loads the core functionality (list shipments with pagination and filters) and specifies key filter options. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response structure, error cases, and usage context relative to siblings. For a list operation with multiple filters and pagination, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filter types (status, carrier, date range) and mentioning pagination, but it doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or default behaviors. 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 tool's purpose as listing shipments with pagination and filters, specifying the resource (shipments) and key capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_shipment' (singular) and 'search_shipments' by emphasizing pagination and specific filters, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_shipments'.

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 like 'search_shipments' or 'get_shipment'. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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