Retrieve all dock locations for shipping and logistics management in your VTEX e-commerce platform.
List all docks
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "vtex_list_docks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List all docks') without detailing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
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 'List all docks' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal. However, for a list operation, it lacks context such as the format of returned data (e.g., list of objects, pagination details), any dependencies, or error handling. This makes it incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it aligns with the schema's lack of parameters.
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 docks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('docks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'docks' are in this context (e.g., shipping docks, inventory docks) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_get_dock' (singular) or other list tools (e.g., 'vtex_list_warehouses'), leaving some ambiguity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'vtex_list_docks' over 'vtex_get_dock' (for a single dock) or other list tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual usage scenarios, such as needing authentication or specific permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.