Get one published fire extinguisher service company 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition of substance is the word 'published', which tells the agent that unpublished records are excluded from results. It does not state what happens when a slug is unknown or unpublished (error vs. empty), which would be the genuinely useful extra detail.
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 short sentence with the identifying verb first and the lookup key last, and zero redundant wording. 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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what is returned (a single published listing) and the selection key. Only the not-found / unpublished outcome is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.
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% for the single 'slug' parameter, including a regex pattern and length bounds, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that the key is a slug, adding no format, casing, or derivation guidance beyond the 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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one published fire extinguisher service company') and an explicit lookup key ('by its slug'). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from list_* and search_listings siblings, though no sibling is named directly.
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 phrase 'by its slug' implies the tool is for direct identifier lookup and that a slug must already be known, which hints at when to prefer search_listings instead. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no stated prerequisite for obtaining the slug, is given.
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.