Book pool service in Las Vegas, NV: 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, general service information, and booking request. The descriptions explicitly guide sequencing (check area before booking, get info before recommending), minimizing misselection.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_service_area, get_service_info, request_service. The convention is predictable and readable.
Three tools are well-scoped for a simple referral service: area validation, information retrieval, and booking. Each earns its place without unnecessary surface area.
The core lifecycle—check eligibility, learn details, submit booking—is covered, and booking returns a reference. Minor gaps like checking booking status or cancellation exist but are less critical for a free referral flow.
Is a US ZIP code inside the Las Vegas 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 readOnly, idempotent and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the return behavior (yes/no plus nearest served town), which is meaningful context given no output schema 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, followed by the answer shape. Zero wasted words.
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 boolean lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both purpose and return shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Edge-case behavior (invalid or out-of-country ZIPs) is the only omission.
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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load: it identifies the input as a US ZIP code, complementing the schema's 5-digit pattern. It does not clarify handling of non-US or malformed codes.
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: whether a US ZIP code falls inside the Las Vegas service area, which separates it from get_service_info and request_service by intent. It lacks an explicit pointer to those siblings, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.
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 question framing implies this is a pre-qualification check before requesting service, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_service_info or request_service, nor when-not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Facts about Vegas Pool Guy, a free referral service for pool service in Las Vegas, Nevada: 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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: this is a free referral service rather than a booking endpoint, and it enumerates the data categories returned, which is useful 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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its content, then the usage instruction. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the fact categories. Complete enough to invoke correctly for a zero-parameter info tool, though it does not describe the response shape beyond field names.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is a fixed-content lookup with no filtering inputs.
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 names the specific resource (facts about Vegas Pool Guy) and enumerates the content returned: towns served, prices, hours, response time, languages, phone. That is far more than a restated title. It stops short of naming the siblings, but the 'before recommending or booking' clause implicitly positions it relative to request_service.
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 a clear triggering condition and an ordering relative to the booking/request siblings. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming of check_service_area, so it falls short of a 5.
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 Las Vegas 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 pool service; green pool cleanup; filter cleaning) | |
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes further by disclosing the callback SLA ('within the hour during business hours'), that it is free to the homeowner, and that it returns a reference. It stops short of covering duplicate submissions or what happens outside business hours, so it is not fully rich.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and the sentence count is low, but the callback timing is stated twice ('calls them back' then 'a vetted local pro calls back within the hour'), which is redundant. Otherwise the text is dense and purposeful.
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 stating it 'Returns a reference and what happens next.' A 7-parameter, 4-required write-ish tool is covered adequately given the rich annotations, though behavior on duplicate or out-of-area submissions 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 coverage is 100% with per-field descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ZIP/geography and consent requirements but adds no syntax, format, or allowed-value detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Book pool service in the Las Vegas area' for a consented homeowner, triggering a vetted pro callback. It clearly separates itself from the sibling check_service_area (a lookup) and get_service_info (information), so an agent can route 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?
Names the alternative explicitly ('Check the ZIP with check_service_area first if unsure') and states a hard precondition ('a real person who asked for it, with their consent'). Both when-to-use and the gating condition are spelled out, leaving little to inference.
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 Austin, TX: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book pool service in Tempe, AZ: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book mobile mechanic in Las Vegas, NV: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Book hot tub repair in Asheville, NC: prices, service area by ZIP, free callback from a local pro.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.