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 mentions auto-detection of carrier, which is a useful behavioral trait, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the tracking URL output entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key feature (auto-detection). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a tracking URL. It adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context, which are important for full understanding in this shipping domain.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining that carrier auto-detection occurs if omitted, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as format examples or carrier code details.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tracking URL for a shipment'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on tracking rather than creation, cancellation, or listing of shipments. It adds unique value by mentioning auto-detection of carrier from tracking number format.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—to obtain a tracking URL—and implies usage by mentioning auto-detection if carrier is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_shipment' which might provide more detailed shipment info.

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