list_repair_guidesList all editorial repair cost guides (slug, title, category, price range). Optionally filter by category: body, mechanical, glass-wheels, or electrical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional guide category filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned fields and the optional category filter, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any quirks about the 'all' semantics. This is acceptable but does not go beyond what a standard read-only list tool implies.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the returned fields, and then states the optional filter. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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-only list tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the returned fields, the filter options, and the safety context from annotations. There are no significant missing details that would prevent correct invocation.
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%, and the single parameter 'category' is already fully documented in the schema with its enum values. The description repeats the same enum options without adding new semantic meaning, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('editorial repair cost guides'), and the returned fields (slug, title, category, price range). It also distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_repair_cost_guide and from list_repair_types by narrowing to repair cost guides with optional category filtering.
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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: to list all editorial repair cost guides, optionally filtered by category. It provides the exact valid filter values, which gives an agent actionable context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as get_repair_cost_guide for retrieving a single guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.