search_prosSearch The Renovation Room's directory of vetted Chicagoland contractors by trade, service, or company name (e.g. "plumber", "kitchen remodel", "fence installation"). Returns published member businesses with their trades, service areas, and profile links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Trade, service, or company name to search for. 2-80 characters. |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond those by specifying that only 'published member businesses' are returned and that results include trades, service areas, and profile links, giving a clear picture of the tool's read-only, list-returning behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately, then gives examples and a preview of the return content. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name or title.
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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the query should be, what the tool searches, and what the result contains. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'trades, service areas, and profile links' fulfills the need to communicate the return shape.
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 a clear description of the 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('plumber', 'kitchen remodel', 'fence installation') and restricting the query context to vetted Chicagoland contractors, helping an agent understand the acceptable query format and intent.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), the exact resource ('The Renovation Room's directory of vetted Chicagoland contractors'), and the search dimensions (trade, service, or company name). It also profiles the returned content, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_pro, how_to_submit_project, and renovation_faq.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to find contractors by trade, service, or company name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search scope is sufficiently defined that an agent can infer this is the lookup-by-text entry point among the siblings.
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.