Etsy MCP Server

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 'Create' implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a profile ID). For a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with best practices for conciseness.

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 complexity as a write operation with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a creation tool in this context, more completeness 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., how primary_cost and secondary_cost interact). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new shipping profile for a shop'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_shipping_profile' or 'manage_shipping_destinations', which would require more specificity about what makes this creation tool distinct.

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 'update_shipping_profile' or 'get_shipping_profiles', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or shop ownership. Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in relation to its siblings.

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