Get one published sprinkler contractor 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?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does contribute one useful fact beyond the annotations: only published contractors are returned, so unpublished records are silently absent. It does not say what happens when the slug does not exist or match the pattern.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core operation, the cardinality, and the keying parameter all appear immediately.
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 single-parameter read tool with complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what a listing contains (or the not-found behavior) would close the remaining 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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including pattern and length constraints, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only reiterates that the slug identifies the listing, adding no format or sourcing guidance such as where a slug comes from.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and specific resource (one published sprinkler contractor) keyed by slug. The words 'one' and 'published' separate it from a search or list operation, though it never names search_listings as the multi-result 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?
Usage is only implied: 'one ... by its slug' suggests a direct lookup when the slug is already known, in contrast to search_listings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on what to do if the slug is unknown.
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.