Get one published HVAC 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact by saying 'published' — unpublished records appear to be excluded — but says nothing about what happens on a miss (error vs empty) or about any rate/auth constraints.
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 zero filler, and the identifying constraint (slug) is stated immediately. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly adequate, but there is no output schema and the description never characterizes the returned contractor record or the not-found case. Those are the only real gaps an agent would hit.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with pattern and length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the slug must reference a published listing, which is marginal beyond the schema plus annotations. Baseline 3 applies.
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 plus resource plus identifier: 'Get one published HVAC contractor by its slug.' The singular, slug-keyed framing implicitly distinguishes it from search_listings and the list_* siblings, but it never names them, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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: fetch a single record when the slug is already known. There is no explicit statement that this is not for discovery/browsing (which would route to search_listings) and no guidance on prerequisites or what to do when 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.