Book windshield replacement in Tampa, FL: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have mostly distinct purposes: checking ZIP eligibility, retrieving general service facts, and submitting a booking request. There is minor overlap in geographic information between check_service_area and get_service_info, but the action-oriented boundaries are clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_service_area, get_service_info, request_service. The convention is predictable and readable throughout.
Three tools are well-scoped for a narrow windshield replacement referral service. Each tool serves a distinct necessary function: eligibility check, information lookup, and booking request.
The surface covers the core lifecycle of checking service area, getting information, and requesting a booking. It lacks cancellation or status-check operations, but those are minor gaps for a free referral service with phone follow-up.
Is a US ZIP code inside the Tampa 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return contents (yes/no plus nearest served town), which matters because there is no output schema.
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 core question is front-loaded and the return value follows immediately. Every sentence 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, input, and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain: nothing is said about behavior for malformed ZIPs or about what 'nearest served town' means when the ZIP is outside the area.
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 only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that the input is a 'US ZIP code', narrowing the semantics beyond a generic string. The 5-digit format itself is enforced by the schema pattern rather than the 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 question the tool answers ('Is a US ZIP code inside the Tampa service area?') and the shape of the answer ('yes/no and the nearest served town'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings get_service_info and request_service, which keeps it from 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 phrasing implies the use case: validating whether a ZIP is covered before presumably calling request_service. However, it never states when to use this versus get_service_info or request_service, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Facts about Tampa Windshield, a free referral service for windshield replacement in Tampa, Florida: 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 non-structured context — that this is a free referral service rather than the service provider itself, plus the set of facts returned — which helps the agent frame its answer correctly.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the subject and follows with the covered facts and the call-to-action. No filler, nothing repeated from the title or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what entity this describes, what facts come back, and when to invoke it. Nothing material is missing.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The listed fields (prices, hours, languages, phone) describe return content rather than inputs, and with no output schema present that enumeration is the only place that information appears.
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 resource — facts about a named windshield-referral business — and enumerates exactly what those facts cover (towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the informational step before recommending or booking, though it never names check_service_area or request_service directly.
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 explicit sequencing: use this first, then proceed to a booking/action tool. It establishes context without stating exclusions or naming the alternative tools, so it falls just short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Book windshield replacement in the Tampa 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. rock chip repair; windshield replacement; side window replacement) | |
| 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 establish the safety profile (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real operational context the annotations cannot: a vetted pro calls back within the hour during business hours, it is free to the homeowner, and it returns a reference plus next steps. It omits any warning that repeat calls create duplicate bookings, which is the main behavioral gap given 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded, but the callback timing 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 pure duplication. The remaining sentences (consent, free, return, ZIP check) each earn their 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, the description correctly summarizes the return ('a reference and what happens next'), and it covers consent, cost, callback timing, and the sibling pre-check — enough for an agent to invoke this 7-parameter booking tool correctly. Only the duplicate-submission behavior is 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (zip, name, phone, need, email, language) is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the ZIP check and the fact that the phone is the number the pro calls, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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+scope: 'Book windshield replacement in the Tampa area', and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling check_service_area by framing that tool as an optional pre-check. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings without opening a schema.
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 gates usage on a real person having asked for it and given consent, and routes the agent to check_service_area first when the ZIP is unknown — a clear precondition plus named alternative. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when *not* to book (e.g., outside the service area or without a callback number).
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 windshield replacement in Oklahoma City, OK: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Book windshield replacement in Kansas City, MO: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Book paintless dent repair in Omaha, NE: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Book mobile mechanic in Corpus Christi, TX: prices, ZIP coverage, free callback.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
