Add an international shipping service to eBay fulfillment policies by specifying service, cost, and ship-to region, with optional dry-run preview before updating.
INTERNATIONALにshippingServiceを追加
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | 配送料 | |
| dryRun | No | trueでプレビュー、falseで更新 | |
| filter | No | ポリシー名の部分一致フィルタ | |
| shipTo | Yes | 配送先（例: Europe） | |
| service | Yes | サービスコード | |
| policyId | No | フルフィルメントポリシーID | |
| additionalCost | No | 追加アイテムのコスト |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it merely says 'add' and gives no effect, permission, reversibility, or preview behavior. The schema's dryRun parameter defaults to true (preview, no update), which means the tool does not actually add by default; the description could mislead an agent expecting an immediate mutation.
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 text is a single concise sentence with no filler, so it earns the middle score. It is also too terse to do more than state the basic action, leaving key operational context unstated.
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?
A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more context than one sentence. The description omits the meaning of INTERNATIONAL, how dryRun prevents real changes, and how filter/policyId/additionalCost relate to the operation, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter details. The schema already documents service, cost, shipTo, dryRun, filter, policyId, and additionalCost, so the description does not need to repeat them.
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 states the action ('追加' = add) and the object (shippingService), and narrows the target to 'INTERNATIONAL', which is enough to distinguish it from sibling remove/reorder/list actions. However, 'INTERNATIONAL' is not defined as a destination, policy, or zone, so the scope remains slightly ambiguous.
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 given about when to use add_shipping_service versus remove_shipping_service, reorder_shipping_services, or list_shipping_services. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the single word 'INTERNATIONAL'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.