Get one published septic 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — only 'published' listings are returned — but says nothing about what happens when the slug doesn't match or is unpublished.
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 scope restriction ('published') is placed where it is most useful.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any output schema combined with no mention of return shape or not-found behavior.
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 load; the description's 'by its slug' adds the identifying role. With one fully documented parameter, the baseline of 4 is met and the concise framing keeps it clear. This is the one dimension where the definition is fully self-sufficient.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get one published septic service company' — plus the lookup key ('by its slug'). 'One' and 'by slug' implicitly separate it from the sibling search_listings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a single known listing when a slug is available. There is no statement of when to prefer search_listings instead, or of any prerequisite for obtaining a slug.
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.