get_proGet one contractor's full public listing from The Renovation Room directory by the numeric id returned from search_pros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The listing id from search_pros results. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing is 'public' and 'full' and that the lookup is by id, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as return format or pagination. No contradiction exists.
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 description is a single sentence with no filler. The main action, resource, source directory, and input coupling are all front-loaded, and every phrase contributes useful information.
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-only lookup tool with annotations covering safety and a schema fully documenting the parameter, the description provides enough context: what is returned ('full public listing') and where the id comes from. It does not describe the exact output shape, but no output schema exists and the description's wording adequately hints at the listing detail.
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 100%; the schema already documents id as 'The listing id from search_pros results.' The description mirrors this with 'numeric id returned from search_pros,' adding no new semantic detail beyond reinforcing the integer type and source. 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?
The description states a specific action ('Get'), a single resource ('one contractor's full public listing'), and the key input ('numeric id returned from search_pros'). This clearly differentiates it from search_pros, which finds ids, and from the non-lookup sibling tools.
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 description establishes a clear workflow: first obtain an id from search_pros, then call get_pro with that id. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions, but the id-source relationship provides sufficient guidance for this simple lookup tool.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: search_pros finds contractors, get_pro retrieves one full listing, renovation_faq answers informational questions, and how_to_submit_project vs start_project are explicitly differentiated as general guidance versus an actionable prefilled link. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_pros, get_pro, start_project), while renovation_faq and how_to_submit_project are resource-style names. The naming is still highly readable and consistent in casing, but not every tool follows the verb_noun convention.
Five tools is well-scoped for a renovation directory assistant: contractor search, detail lookup, FAQ, process explanation, and project-start action. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or bloat.
The core user journeys are covered: discovering and inspecting contractors, getting answers about permits/costs/hiring, and starting a project quote request. The handoff to the homeowner for final submission is intentional, so there are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.