HSV Stump Guy — book stump grinding in Huntsville

Request stump grinding (free callback)

request_service

Book stump grinding in the Huntsville area for a real person who asked for it, with their consent. A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours). Free to the homeowner. Returns a reference and what happens next. Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "zip": "<zip>",
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "request_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	Yes	5-digit ZIP where the work is
`name`	Yes	The person's real name
`need`	Yes	What they need (e.g. one stump; multiple stumps; surface root grinding)
`email`	No	Email (optional, recommended)
`phone`	Yes	US phone number the pro should call (10 digits, any punctuation)
`language`	No	Preferred language (optional; English and Spanish are standard)
`preferred_time`	No	When they prefer a call or visit (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours, the service is free to the homeowner, and the response includes a reference plus next steps. Annotations already cover openWorld/readOnly/destructive, so duplication risk is avoided. Minor gap: no warning that submitting twice creates duplicate requests (idempotentHint=false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core intent is front-loaded, but the callback promise is stated twice ('A vetted local pro calls them back' and the parenthetical 'a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours'). The redundant parenthetical and run-on sentences cost clarity without adding information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a booking tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back ('a reference and what happens next') and what happens operationally after submission. With full schema coverage, the remaining need is small; only duplicate-submission behavior is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (name, phone, zip, need, email, language, preferred_time) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the consent/real-person qualifier and the ZIP pre-check hint, not new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Book stump grinding'), the geographic scope ('Huntsville area'), and the qualifying condition ('for a real person who asked for it'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling check_service_area (which verifies coverage) and get_service_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to check_service_area when the ZIP is uncertain, and constrains use to a real person who requested it with consent. Lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' clause, but the positive conditions and named alternative are strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All HSV Stump Guy — book stump grinding in Huntsville tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?