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 what the tool does operationally (e.g., whether it retrieves data, performs calculations, or modifies records), its side effects, error conditions, or output format. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior.

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 the description is extremely concise (two words), this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement and omits essential details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this inefficient for agent understanding.

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 unknown complexity, absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and minimal schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its place among many sibling tools. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 0% description coverage, with only a single required parameter 'voyage_id' documented as a UUID. The description 'voyage port disbursements' adds no semantic meaning about this parameter—it does not explain what a voyage ID represents, how to obtain it, or its role in fetching disbursements. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'voyage port disbursements' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal variation. It lacks a specific verb indicating what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'calculate', 'list'), does not clarify what 'disbursements' refers to in this context, and fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_voyage_details' or 'get_voyage_profit_and_loss'. This provides no meaningful guidance to an AI agent.

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, context, or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., whether it complements 'get_voyage_details' or serves a distinct purpose). Without any usage instructions, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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