Marlo MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format might be, or any rate limits. 'list all customers' implies pagination (supported by parameters) but this isn't explicitly stated in the description.

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 at just three words, but this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. While front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary detail. The structure is minimal but fails to convey adequate information.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed for proper 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't mention pagination, search capabilities, or any input requirements. The schema shows 'page', 'per_page', and 'search' parameters, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'list all customers' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_all_vendors' or 'list_all_bank_accounts' beyond the resource type. While it identifies the resource as 'customers', it lacks detail about scope, format, or verb specificity 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'get_customer_details' for specific customer retrieval, nor any context about filtering capabilities (despite the 'search' parameter). The description offers zero usage context or exclusions.

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