get-service-requestReturns one authorized service-request inbox record using bounded status, source, urgency, and scheduling fields without exposing request descriptions, addresses, contact channels, metadata, files, or outreach controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_request_id | No | Service-request ID returned by search-service-requests. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns only bounded status, source, urgency, and scheduling fields, and explicitly excludes descriptions, addresses, contact channels, metadata, files, and outreach controls. This behavioral detail about field filtering goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then elaborates on the field restrictions. Every part of the sentence adds value; there is 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?
The description is adequate for a simple get tool with one parameter. It explains what the tool returns (field categories) and what it excludes. However, it does not list the exact fields within the categories ('status, source, urgency, scheduling fields'), which might leave an agent uncertain about the precise output. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap.
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's description in the schema already explains its meaning and origin ('Service-request ID returned by search-service-requests'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (returns), the resource (one authorized service-request inbox record), and the scope (bounded status, source, urgency, scheduling fields). It also explicitly lists what is NOT exposed, which distinguishes this from search-service-requests and other get-* tools. The specificity of the field restrictions makes the purpose unmistakable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a workflow through the parameter description ('Service-request ID returned by search-service-requests'), but the description itself lacks guidance on selecting this over search-service-requests or other sibling tools. No exclusions or conditions are given.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.