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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 action ('List available shipping carriers') and adds necessary context ('by origin country'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, no output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, return values (e.g., list format, carrier details), error conditions, or usage context. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure proper integration and understanding.

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%, with the single parameter 'origin_country_iso' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of output or edge cases). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('available shipping carriers'), and specifies the filtering criterion ('by origin country'). It distinguishes this as a read operation from siblings like create_shipment or update_shipping_profile, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), related tools like get_shipping_profiles, or scenarios where this is needed (e.g., before creating a shipment). Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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