Get one published boarding school by its slug.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_listing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — only *published* listings are returned — but says nothing about what happens for an unpublished or nonexistent slug (not-found vs. error).
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding or redundant restatement of the name. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields a listing returns, and the missing-slug failure mode is undocumented. A short clause on result contents or not-found behavior would close the gap.
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 single slug parameter has 100% schema coverage, including a pattern and length bounds, so the schema carries the specification. The description only restates the key type and contributes no extra format or sourcing guidance, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.
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 pairs the verb "Get" with a precise resource — one published boarding school — and the lookup key (slug). It clearly reads as a single-record fetch, distinct from the list/search siblings by name and cardinality, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
"By its slug" implies a prerequisite (you must already have a slug, e.g. from search_listings), but the description never states when to prefer this over the search sibling or what to do if you only have a name. 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.