Search this single property by destination, guest count, and bedrooms. No match says nothing about other Pagosa Springs lodging.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "search_stays"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guests | No | ||
| bedrooms | No | ||
| destination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the negative-result semantics and the single-property scope limit ('No match says nothing about other Pagosa Springs lodging'). It does not describe the return shape or pagination, so not a 5.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second; 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?
Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and result interpretation adequately for a read-only search tool, and annotations cover safety. The main remaining gap is that parameter meaning and result format are left thin.
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, and it does name all three parameters (destination, guest count, bedrooms). However, it adds no semantic depth beyond the schema names — nothing about destination format (city/zip/region) or matching behavior — so it only partially compensates.
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 ('Search ... by destination, guest count, and bedrooms') and constrains scope to 'this single property', which separates it from a broad multi-property search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_availability or get_quote, so it falls short of a 5.
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 second sentence gives useful interpretation guidance for a negative result, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or reference to the sibling tools that cover availability, quotes, or booking. Usage is only implied.
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.