TF Handy Wash

Published reporting instructions; sends nothing

how_to_report_machine_issue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only: returns the published way to report a washer, dryer or payment problem in English or Spanish: call or text, or email, what to include (machine number, what happened, when and how you paid) and what happens next. It files nothing, sends nothing and stores no report. It promises no refund (the site says it does not promise one on a web page). The store is unattended; a person answers the phone and email.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "language": "es"
    },
    "name": "how_to_report_machine_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	Reply language: en (English, default) or es (Spanish).	en

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`faq`	No
`note`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`intro`	No
`phone`	Yes
`steps`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`heading`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`phoneHref`	No
`reportUrl`	Yes
`alsoOnPricesPage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it states explicitly that it files nothing, sends nothing and stores no report. It also warns that no refund is promised and notes the store is unattended with a person answering phone and email, which materially shapes how an agent should present the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The status ('Read-only: returns...') is front-loaded and the content sentences each carry real information. The parenthetical about the site not promising a refund on a web page is awkwardly worded and slightly redundant with the preceding sentence, which keeps this from a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the content returned, the safety profile and the caveats (no refund promise, unattended store). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and relay the answer correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the enum and default already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the English/Spanish choice but adds no new meaning about formatting or fallback behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns the published instructions for reporting a washer, dryer or payment problem, including the channels (call, text, email) and required details. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_contact_form_link or search_faq, which do not carry the full reporting procedure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scenario (a customer with a machine or payment problem), but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over search_faq or get_contact_form_link. Because there is no sibling routing or exclusion, an agent must infer the choice from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TF Handy Wash tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?