Consulte le statut d'une demande Fixou et les reponses des artisans (nom de l'entreprise, message, prix indicatif, delai, note moyenne). Ne renvoie jamais de coordonnees : celles-ci ne sont communiquees qu'au client final, une fois qu'il a choisi un artisan sur fixou.fr. Une cle API ne peut consulter que les demandes qu'elle a elle-meme creees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | Identifiant de la demande, renvoye par create_request. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: never returns coordinates, explains why, and states API key scoping. Could add more about latency or potential errors, but sufficient.
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, no wasted words. First sentence conveys purpose and returned data; second adds constraints. Information is front-loaded.
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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (listing fields), what it does not return, and access restrictions. No gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for requestId. The description adds context that requestId comes from create_request, linking to sibling tool, which adds value beyond schema.
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 it checks the status of a Fixou request and artisan responses, listing specific data elements returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings create_request (creation) and list_categories (listing).
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 explicitly states when to use (after creation) and what the tool does not return (contact details), and provides the access constraint that an API key can only query its own requests.
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 targets a distinct operation: creating a request, retrieving its status, and listing categories. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear which tool to use for each action.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_request, get_request, list_categories), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of managing quote requests. The number is not excessive and each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The server covers creation and retrieval of requests, and listing categories, but lacks tools for listing all requests created by an agent, updating a request, or deleting a request. These gaps could hinder streamlined workflows.
