AVL Hot Tub — book hot tub repair in Asheville

Request hot tub repair (free callback)

request_service

Book hot tub repair in the Asheville area for a real person who asked for it, with their consent. A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours). Free to the homeowner. Returns a reference and what happens next. Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "zip": "<zip>",
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "request_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	Yes	5-digit ZIP where the work is
`name`	Yes	The person's real name
`need`	Yes	What they need (e.g. heater not working; jets or pump issues; tub leaking water)
`email`	No	Email (optional, recommended)
`phone`	Yes	US phone number the pro should call (10 digits, any punctuation)
`language`	No	Preferred language (optional; English and Spanish are standard)
`preferred_time`	No	When they prefer a call or visit (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real context beyond them: a human pro calls back within the hour during business hours, the service is free to the homeowner, and a reference plus next steps are returned. It does not say what happens on an out-of-area ZIP or a duplicate submission, which matters for a non-idempotent booking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core is front-loaded and short, but the callback detail is stated twice in near-identical wording ('A vetted local pro calls them back' and the parenthetical 'a vetted local pro calls back within the hour'), which reads as an editing artifact and wastes a sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: consent requirement, cost, callback timing, and that a reference is returned. The remaining holes are edge-case behavior (out-of-area ZIP, repeat requests), minor against the annotation coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with examples and formats. The description adds only the ZIP-validity advice, no extra meaning for name, phone, need, or the optional fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (book hot tub repair), the geography (Asheville area), and the audience constraint (a real person who asked, with consent). It is clearly distinct from check_service_area, which it names as the ZIP-validation step, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear precondition (the homeowner asked and consented) and an explicit routing rule: check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure. It stops short of stating when-not to call or what to do if the ZIP fails the area check, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

All AVL Hot Tub — book hot tub repair in Asheville tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?