Every franchise car dealership in Glendale, CA listed on CarGlendale, with brand, address, phone and how many cars each has listed.
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": "list_dealerships"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the result set is exhaustive ('Every... listed on CarGlendale'), takes no inputs, and returns brand, address, phone, and per-dealership car counts — effectively acting as an output contract given there is no output schema. It does not state that the operation is read-only or whether the list is ever paginated or refreshed, leaving gaps.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the scope (location, source) plus the returned fields are front-loaded. Slightly awkward passive construction and the repeated 'CarGlendale' reference cost it a point, but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the essential facts: full enumeration, fixed geography, and the fields returned. What remains unsaid — read-only nature and freshness/pagination behavior — is minor for a simple directory listing.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The absence of parameters is consistent with the description's framing of a fixed, unpaginated full listing, so there is no semantic gap to fill.
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 names the resource (franchise car dealerships) and pins down scope precisely: Glendale, CA, sourced from CarGlendale, with the fields returned. That is enough to separate it from siblings like get_car and search_cars, which operate on individual vehicles. It loses a point only because it is phrased as a contents blurb ('Every franchise car dealership... listed on...') rather than an action statement.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated precondition — the agent must infer that this is the directory/browse tool as opposed to search_cars. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to the sibling search or lookup tools.
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.