drives_host_showroomGet a host profile page with bio, locations, team, and social links by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Host username slug, e.g. "luxury-garage-miami" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects) beyond stating the read operation.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no wasted words. Every part is essential.
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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields (bio, locations, team, social links). It could mention response format or pagination, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is minor.
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% with a clear example for the single parameter 'username'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'host profile page', and lists specific content (bio, locations, team, social links). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like drives_search_vehicles or drives_get_quote.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the basic operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the rental process: searching by location, vehicles, airports, venues; getting details, availability, reviews, quotes; and host profiles. No two tools overlap in purpose, ensuring clear agent selection.
All tools share the 'drives_' prefix and use snake_case, but the word order varies: some follow verb_noun (drives_get_quote, drives_search_vehicles), others noun_verb (drives_airport_search, drives_location_suggest), and some are noun_noun (drives_vehicle_availability, drives_host_showroom). This inconsistency makes the pattern less predictable.
With 9 tools, the server covers essential rental marketplace operations without excess. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set comprehensively covers browsing, searching, quoting, and reviewing vehicles, plus location and venue queries. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to create or manage bookings, but the server likely focuses on pre-booking information.