Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words, consisting of a single three-word phrase. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the basic intent, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 severely incomplete. It does not address parameter meaning, behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not mention the 'fleet_id' parameter at all, leaving its purpose, format (UUID), or necessity unexplained. With one required parameter and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 fleet details' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the resource ('fleet') but lacks details about what 'details' includes or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_fleets' (which likely lists fleets) or 'get_vessel_details' (which focuses on vessels). This provides minimal guidance beyond the obvious.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a fleet_id), differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_fleets' (which may list fleets without details), or specify use cases. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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