Marlo MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and efficiency, it earns full marks for being minimal.

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 (a read operation with a required parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to compensate for missing structured data, providing no context on behavior, parameters, or outputs, making it insufficient for effective tool 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'cargo_book_id' represents, its format (UUID), or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 'Get cargo book details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the verb 'Get' and resource 'cargo book details', it doesn't specify what 'details' include or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_all_cargo_books' or 'search_cargos'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_all_cargo_books' (likely for listing) and 'search_cargos' (likely for filtering), the description offers no context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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