Book mobile mechanic in New Orleans, LA: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: verify coverage (check_service_area), retrieve business facts (get_service_info), and place a booking (request_service). Descriptions even state the ordering dependency (check ZIP before booking), leaving no realistic misselection risk.
All three names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_service_area, get_service_info, request_service). No stylistic deviations or mixed conventions.
Three tools is at the low end but matches a narrow referral-booking domain, with no redundant or filler tools. It is slightly thin in that there is no separate tool for anything beyond the core flow.
The core lifecycle — check coverage, learn details, book with consent — is fully covered and the tools reference each other sensibly. Minor gaps exist (no way to look up, reschedule, or cancel an existing reference), but agents can work around these via the callback flow.
Is a US ZIP code inside the New Orleans 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 read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (yes/no plus nearest served town), which is not covered by annotations, though no edge cases or error behavior are mentioned.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the return information. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values, and annotations cover safety. It could be more complete by specifying input validation or edge-case behavior, but it is adequate given the low complexity.
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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description only identifies it as a 'US ZIP code' without explaining the 5-digit pattern or format constraints. It adds some semantic meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.
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 specific check (ZIP inside New Orleans service area) and the return values, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_service_info or request_service, so it falls short of the top score.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives named. The purpose implies a use case (checking service eligibility) but an agent must infer when to select this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Facts about NOLA Mechanic, a free referral service for mobile mechanic in New Orleans, Louisiana: 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful framing — that this is a free referral service rather than the mechanic itself — but says nothing about response size, freshness, or rate limits beyond that.
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?
One colon-delimited sentence plus a short imperative; the resource identity is front-loaded and the field list follows immediately. Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.
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 no parameters, the description does the needed work by listing the returned facts and stating the pre-booking timing. Only the absence of any freshness or scope caveat keeps it below complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully redirects that budget toward output semantics by enumerating the fields the caller will receive (prices, hours, response time, languages, phone), which is more than the empty schema conveys.
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 names a specific resource (NOLA Mechanic, a free referral service for mobile mechanics in New Orleans) and enumerates the data it returns: towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone. It is clearly distinguishable from check_service_area and request_service, though it never names those siblings 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?
"Call this before recommending or booking" gives an explicit trigger condition that implicitly routes the agent away from the booking sibling. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or naming check_service_area as a complement, so it is clear context rather than full alternatives coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Book mobile mechanic in the New Orleans 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. battery dead or weak; brake pads or rotors; car won’t start) | |
| 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 already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is free to the homeowner, a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours, consent is required, and it returns a reference plus next steps.
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 on the core action, but the callback detail is stated twice in a redundant parenthetical ('A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour during business hours)'), which is wasted space in an otherwise tight description.
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 noting it 'Returns a reference and what happens next,' which tells the agent what to expect. Combined with the consent requirement, timing, and cost, it covers what an agent needs to invoke this correctly, with only minor gaps.
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 all seven parameters are already documented with types, patterns, and constraints. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., no syntax for phone, zip, or need), so baseline 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/request) and resource (mobile mechanic callback in the New Orleans area), plus scope constraints (real person, with consent). It also names the sibling check_service_area for pre-validation, so the agent can distinguish it from check_service_area and get_service_info without opening schemas.
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?
Gives clear context ('for a real person who asked for it, with their consent') and a routing rule: 'Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure.' This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, though it stops short of stating when the tool should NOT be used.
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 mobile mechanic in Corpus Christi, TX: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Book mobile mechanic in Las Vegas, NV: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book mobile mechanic in Phoenix, AZ: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book mobile mechanic in Boise, ID: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.