Check coverage for one provider (locksmith_id) or an area (location: ZIP or city).
Returns whether the area is served, how many vetted providers cover it, and how many
offer 24/7 emergency service. Live availability is confirmed at request_quote — this
does not return a real-time "available now" status, so don't imply one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | ||
| locksmith_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it discloses the shape of the result (served or not, count of vetted providers, count with 24/7 emergency) and clarifies that results are not a live availability status — an important semantic limit the annotations do not capture.
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?
Two short paragraphs, the scope stated first and the important caveat second. No filler sentences; every line carries either routing or result-shape information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by summarizing what is returned. Combined with the request_quote pointer and the availability caveat, an agent has almost everything needed, with only the both/neither-parameter behavior left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds real meaning by specifying the expected value of location ('ZIP or city') and that locksmith_id targets a single provider. It does not state whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, whether both may be supplied, or what happens when both are empty (they default to empty strings), leaving a gap in a two-mode API.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check coverage') and enumerates the two lookup modes: one provider via locksmith_id or an area via location. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_locksmiths or get_locksmith, so an agent must infer that this is a coverage-summary call rather than a directory search.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use this for provider/area coverage checks, and use request_quote for live availability. The 'don't imply a real-time available-now status' instruction is a clear negative boundary that prevents a common misinterpretation.
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.