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 only states the action 'Get' without explaining whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned (e.g., laytime calculations, status), potential side effects, or error conditions. This lack of detail fails to compensate for the missing annotations.

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 core action, 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 complexity implied by 'laytime' (likely involving calculations or contractual data), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its context among sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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%, so the description must add meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'voyage laytime' but does not clarify the 'voyage_id' parameter's role (e.g., how to obtain it, format expectations beyond UUID). With 1 undocumented parameter, the description provides minimal semantic context, insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 laytime' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'voyage laytime', but lacks detail on what 'laytime' entails (e.g., time calculations, contractual terms) or how it differs from siblings like 'get_voyage_details'. This makes it vague and minimally informative beyond the name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a voyage_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_voyage_details' or 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss'. This absence leaves the agent without 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.