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. 'get journal entries' implies a read operation but offers no details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. It fails to describe what 'journal entries' entail (e.g., financial records, logs) or any constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. 'get journal entries' is a single phrase that fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient rather than succinct. It lacks front-loaded critical information and does not earn its place with meaningful content.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'journal entries' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps. For a tool in a context with many sibling tools, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance for an AI agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing param 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 'get journal entries' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'journal entries', but lacks detail about scope, format, or filtering, making it vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'get_all_voyages' or 'get_essel_details'. It does not distinguish itself from potential alternatives.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'list_all_transactions' or 'get_all_borrowers_summary_for_lender', there is no indication of how this tool differs in usage. This leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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