get_dealershipUse this with an exact dealer_id to return every public rooftop, contact, site, capability, and named sales/service schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dealer_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| dealer_id | Yes | ||
| locations | Yes | ||
| vehicle_count | Yes | ||
| agent_card_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / locations / items / properties / country / constRemoved value: -"US"Output schema / properties / locations / items / properties / country / enumAdded value: +[
+ "US",
+ "CA"
+]Output schema / properties / locations / items / properties / schedules / descriptionPrevious value: -"All published rooftop schedules; each named entry preserves local sales, service, or other department hours."New value: +"Published rooftop schedules with named sales, service, or other department hours."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the scope of returned data ('every public...'), which is valuable but does not cover error handling, rate limits, or authorization requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence conveys all essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with usage condition and scope. No wasted words.
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 a single required parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately lists the returned data categories. However, it omits behavior for missing IDs, pagination (if any), or access permissions, though these are less critical with annotations indicating safe reads.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only notes that dealer_id must be 'exact', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type/format. The agent gains little insight into constraints or usage nuances.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('return') and the resource ('every public rooftop, contact, site, capability, and named sales/service schedule') for a specific dealer_id. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'find_dealerships' by requiring an exact ID, but does not explicitly contrast.
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?
Description specifies the condition for use: 'with an exact dealer_id'. However, it does not mention when not to use it, alternative tools like 'find_dealerships', or error scenarios like missing ID.
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.