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. It fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it returns a list or single object, or any rate limits or side effects. The description is too minimal to provide useful behavioral context.

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 only three words, which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks essential details that would help an agent use the tool effectively. It's not front-loaded with critical information, as it merely repeats the tool name.

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 (1 required parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any contextual nuances. For a tool that likely returns contact data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its functionality.

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, and the description adds no information about the 'voyage_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a voyage ID is, where to find it, or its format (UUID). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 voyage contacts' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It indicates the tool retrieves contacts related to voyages but lacks specificity about what type of contacts (e.g., charterers, agents, brokers) or what information is returned. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_voyage_details' or 'get_voyage_contacts_financial_details', it doesn't clearly differentiate its scope.

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, context for use, or differentiate from sibling tools such as 'get_voyage_contacts_financial_details' or 'search_charterer_contacts'. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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