Summarize Finnish port congestion by aggregating vessel calls, cargo share, active berths, and average turnaround times; filter by selected ports or cargo-only traffic.
Aggregate port call traffic, cargo share, active berths, and average vessel turnaround time across Finnish ports (CC BY 4.0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ports | No | ||
| cargoOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and leaves major traits undisclosed: the aggregation time window is never stated (over what period are calls counted or turnaround averaged?), it doesn't confirm this is a read-only summary, and it says nothing about result shape or cardinality. The CC BY 4.0 attribution note is genuinely useful extra context, which keeps this above a 1.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the aggregated metrics, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than excess.
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?
An aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to define the aggregation window, the granularity of results, and the safety profile. None of these are present, so an agent cannot confidently predict what comes back or how to scope the query.
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 two parameters are undocumented anywhere. The description gestures at them obliquely ('across Finnish ports' for the ports array, 'cargo share' for cargoOnly) but never clarifies the expected port identifier format or whether an empty ports array means all ports.
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?
States a specific verb ('Aggregate') plus concrete metrics (port call traffic, cargo share, active berths, average turnaround) scoped to Finnish ports. It implicitly contrasts with the raw sibling digitraffic_port_calls, but never names it, so differentiation requires inference.
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 statement of when to use this aggregation rather than digitraffic_port_calls, and no mention of whether both should be combined. The only situational hint is 'across Finnish ports', which is scope, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.