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. 'Search cargos' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns partial matches, exact matches, paginated results, error conditions, or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

While 'Search cargos' is extremely brief, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two words don't provide enough information to be useful, making it inefficient for an AI agent. A truly concise description would still include essential context without waste, which this lacks.

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 of a search operation with 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, any limitations, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns multiple results, this omission is significant and leaves the agent guessing.

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 tool description doesn't mention any parameters. The description 'Search cargos' doesn't explain what 'cargo_name' represents, how it's used in the search (e.g., substring matching, case sensitivity), or any constraints. With low schema coverage and no parameter details in the description, this fails to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Search cargos' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering, matching criteria) or what 'cargos' refers to in this domain context. While it mentions the verb and resource, it lacks the differentiation needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_all_cargo_books' or 'get_cargo_book_details'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to cargo (e.g., 'get_all_cargo_books', 'get_cargo_book_details'), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for basic name-based lookup, comprehensive filtering, or another purpose. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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