search_fieldsFind rentable fields near a location. With a date, returns only fields with open slots that day (at start_time if given), each with a booking_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | ||
| lng | No | ||
| city | No | Used when lat/lng are not given | |
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, in the field's local timezone | |
| size | No | ||
| state | No | Two-letter US state code, e.g. TX | |
| surface | No | ||
| duration | No | Booking length in minutes | |
| start_time | No | HH:mm, 24-hour | |
| radius_miles | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, the description clarifies a key behavioral trait by explicitly stating that the results returned include a 'booking_url' for each field. This is crucial information about the output payload structure that is not detailed in the input schema.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to cover the resource, the core functionality (search), and the key constraints (availability and booking URL). There is zero wasted language.
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 the lack of an output schema, the description successfully completes the context by guaranteeing the inclusion of a booking URL in the results. It effectively communicates that the tool returns actionable, available slots.
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?
With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description does not offer sufficient compensation. It lists a date and start_time, but it does not elaborate on how the parameters interact (e.g., if 'city' is used, does it imply a default radius?) or what the expected format nuances are beyond the schema's type constraints.
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 tool's primary function: to 'Find rentable fields near a location.' This is a specific action (find) applied to a resource (rentable fields), distinguishing it as a search/discovery tool compared to the listed siblings which suggest direct retrieval.
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?
It provides contextual clues for usage by specifying that results are filtered based on availability ('returns only fields with open slots that day'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this search tool versus calling the sibling 'get_availability'.
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.