Book pool service in Tempe, AZ: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: ZIP eligibility check, informational lookup, and booking submission. Descriptions explicitly state the ordering relationships (check ZIP before booking, call info before recommending), leaving little room for misselection.
All three tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_service_area, get_service_info, request_service. Predictable and readable throughout.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow referral-service domain covering eligibility, information, and booking. No redundant or filler tools are present.
Core homeowner lifecycle—qualify, learn, book—is fully covered, with a free callback closing the loop. Minor gaps exist: no way to check booking status, cancel, or reschedule, though these may be handled off-band by the calling pro.
Is a US ZIP code inside the Tempe 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, idempotentHint and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the response content ('returns yes/no and the 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, the core question front-loaded, and the return value stated second. Nothing extraneous.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input domain and the return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the relationship to siblings (when to follow up with request_service) is left implicit.
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 must carry the load; it does clarify the input is a US ZIP code, and the schema's pattern enforces the 5-digit format. It adds no further meaning about accepted values beyond that.
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 verb and resource ('Is a US ZIP code inside the Tempe service area?'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings get_service_info or request_service, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the pre-check before request_service, but the description never says when to use it versus the siblings or what to do with the answer. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Facts about Tempe Pool Guy, a free referral service for pool service in Tempe, Arizona: 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that – it identifies the entity as a free referral service and lists the categories of facts returned, which is meaningful for interpreting results.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the subject, its nature and its enumerated contents, closing with the routing instruction. No redundant or filler text.
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 compensates by enumerating the fields returned (towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.
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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No syntax or filtering concerns apply.
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 ('Facts about Tempe Pool Guy ... a free referral service for pool service in Tempe, Arizona') and enumerates the content domains it returns. An agent can tell this apart from check_service_area and request_service without opening any 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 says 'Call this before recommending or booking,' giving clear usage context relative to the booking-oriented siblings. It does not name the siblings directly or state when not to call it, keeping it just below the top mark.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Book pool service in the Tempe 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. weekly cleaning and chemicals; green pool cleanup; pump or heater repair) | |
| 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 openWorldHint=true, non-destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the callback SLA ('within the hour during business hours'), the cost ('Free to the homeowner'), and the fact that a request reference is returned. It does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate requests, which the idempotentHint=false implies, leaving one meaningful behavioral gap.
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?
Short and front-loaded: purpose, then mechanics, then cost, then the prerequisite check last. It loses a point for a redundant parenthetical that restates the callback claim ('A vetted local pro calls them back (a vetted local pro calls back within the hour...)'), which is the one non-earning sentence.
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 compensates by saying it 'Returns a reference and what happens next,' and it covers eligibility, timing, and cost. The main omission is any statement about duplicate submissions, which matters given the non-idempotent hint and the absence of an output schema to clarify.
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%, with the pattern, length bounds, and per-field meaning documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely ties the ZIP field to check_service_area validation and adds no syntax or format information beyond what the schema provides.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Book pool service') and narrows scope geographically ('in the Tempe area'), so an agent immediately knows this creates a service request rather than looking up information. It also names the sibling tool check_service_area, making it distinguishable from get_service_info and check_service_area 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?
Gives an explicit precondition ('for a real person who asked for it, with their consent') and an explicit routing rule ('Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure'), which names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs to avoid booking on behalf of an unconsenting party.
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 pool service in Las Vegas, NV: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book pool service in Austin, TX: 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 AC repair in El Paso, TX: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.