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 states the search functionality and return of matching shipments but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage guidelines or behavioral context to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs (implied by 'integration_key'), result limitations, or error scenarios. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (integration_key, q, limit). The description mentions 'order ID or tracking number' for the 'q' parameter, adding minimal context but not significant value beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search shipments by order ID or tracking number. Returns matching shipments.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('shipments'), and search criteria. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_shipments' or 'get_shipment', which might offer different scopes or filtering capabilities.

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. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'list_shipments' (which might list all shipments without search) or 'get_shipment' (which might retrieve a single shipment by ID), leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.

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