Marlo MCP

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. However, it offers no information about whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what data sources it uses, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool with complex nested parameters (as seen in the schema), this lack of behavioral context 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 just three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than true conciseness. It's front-loaded but fails to convey necessary information, making it inadequate despite its short length.

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 complexity (nested parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral context. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description 'Get vessel valuation' provides no information about parameters, not even hinting at the required 'data' object or its nested structures (dcf and other with fields like imo, scrap_price, name, vessel_type). This leaves all parameters completely 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 vessel valuation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what type of valuation (e.g., market value, scrap value, DCF-based) or what the output represents. While it includes the verb 'get' and resource 'vessel valuation,' it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential alternatives or understand its exact function.

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 any prerequisites, context for use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_company_valuation' or 'get_vessel_details.' Without this information, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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