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 the tool's behavior—such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description fails to add any value beyond the minimal name restatement, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it consists of only three words that repeat the tool name. While brevity is often a virtue, here it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than concise. There is no structure or front-loading of key details, as it lacks any explanatory content.

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 (a search operation with one parameter), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect in return. For a tool that likely interacts with sanctions data—a sensitive domain—this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description does not mention or explain the single parameter 'source_id', nor does it provide any context about its meaning, format, or usage. With a schema description coverage of 0%, the schema only indicates it's a required string titled 'Source Id', but the description adds no semantic information to clarify what this ID represents (e.g., a database identifier, external reference, or search key). This leaves the parameter poorly documented.

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 individual sanction' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'search' entails (e.g., retrieving, filtering, or looking up), what constitutes an 'individual sanction' (e.g., a person, entity, or record), or how the search operates. While it mentions the resource ('individual sanction'), the verb 'search' is too vague to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_sanctions' or 'get_sanctions_case_manager_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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'search_sanctions' or 'list_all_sanctions_case_manager' for comparison. Without this information, an AI agent cannot determine the appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool over others in the same domain.

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