Book gutter guard installation in Nashville, TN: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checking coverage, retrieving business/service facts, and submitting a booking request. There is little risk of confusing one for another.
All three tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming: check_service_area, get_service_info, and request_service. The convention is predictable and readable.
Three tools are well scoped for a narrow referral/booking service: check eligibility, get information, then book. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary surface area.
The set covers the core lifecycle of checking service area, learning service details, and requesting installation. Minor gaps exist around booking management or cancellation, but those are not essential for the stated referral purpose.
Is a US ZIP code inside the Nashville service area? Returns yes/no and the nearest served town.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the return shape (yes/no plus nearest served town), but says nothing about invalid non-US input, out-of-area behavior, or failure modes.
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 sentences with zero filler; the scope question is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (yes/no + nearest served town) for this single-parameter read-only check. Only the edge-case behavior for invalid ZIPs is left unstated.
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 0%, and the sole 'zip' parameter only carries a ^[0-9]{5}$ pattern. The description partially compensates by specifying a 'US ZIP code', but adds no guidance on malformed, non-US, or unassigned ZIPs, leaving the gap only half closed.
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+resource and a geographic scope ('Is a US ZIP code inside the Nashville service area?'), plus what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from get_service_info and request_service in practice, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrasing — an agent can infer this is the pre-check before request_service — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Adequate minimum viability, no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Facts about Nashville Gutter Guards Co, a free referral service for gutter guard installation in Nashville, Tennessee: towns served, typical prices, hours, response time, languages and phone. Call this before recommending or booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it enumerates the returned content and, importantly, discloses that the company is a free referral service rather than the installer itself — a material fact for the agent. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or freshness of pricing data.
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 efficient sentence front-loads the entity identity, then the content list, then the call-to-action. Slightly list-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews what the call returns (towns, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone). For a zero-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; only the relationship to check_service_area remains unstated.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related because there is nothing to add, and the empty schema is consistent with a zero-argument info lookup.
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 concrete resource (Nashville Gutter Guards Co referral-service facts) and enumerates exactly what it covers: towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone. It is clearly distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings request_service and check_service_area, though it does not explicitly acknowledge the overlap with check_service_area on towns served.
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?
"Call this before recommending or booking" gives an explicit ordering and implies the alternative (booking/request_service) it should precede. It stops short of naming check_service_area or saying when this tool should NOT be used, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Book gutter guard installation in the Nashville 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | 5-digit ZIP where the work is | |
| name | Yes | The person's real name | |
| need | Yes | What they need (e.g. small job (up to 100 ft); typical home (100–200 ft); large home or complex) | |
| 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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds materially beyond them: free to the homeowner, callback within the hour during business hours, returns a reference and next steps, and requires the person's consent. It does not address duplicate submissions or what happens if the area is not served.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action, but the callback promise is needlessly duplicated in a parenthetical ('a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours'), which restates the preceding clause instead of adding new 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return (a reference plus next steps) and covers the key operational facts (free, callback window, consent). One gap: it never says what happens when the area is not served, which is the natural failure mode given the check_service_area sibling.
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%, so every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only contextual ballast (Nashville area, consent, real name) and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (book), resource (gutter guard installation), geography (Nashville area), and the eligibility precondition (real person who asked, with consent). It also names the sibling check_service_area for ZIP verification, so an agent can distinguish it from check_service_area 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes to check_service_area first when the ZIP is uncertain, and the consent/'real person who asked' clause implies a precondition not to book on behalf of someone who didn't request it. However, the condition is hedged ('if unsure') and there is no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_service_areaget_service_inforequest_serviceBook radon mitigation in Lexington, KY: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book stump grinding in Huntsville, AL: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book spray foam insulation in Tulsa, OK: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Book backflow testing in Charleston, SC: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
