Get one published well 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description's one addition is the 'published' qualifier, hinting that unpublished listings are not retrievable, but it doesn't say what happens then (error vs empty result).
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no 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-param, read-only, idempotent lookup with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real omission is behavior when the slug doesn't resolve to a published listing, which the agent cannot infer.
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 parameter has 100% schema coverage including pattern and length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the slug refers to a published listing, which doesn't extend the parameter's meaning materially.
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 resource ('one published well contractor'), with singular scope that implicitly separates it from list_courses/list_places-style siblings and from search_listings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer that discovery uses search_listings.
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 the precondition that the caller already has a slug, which weakly signals when this tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the search/list alternatives for when a 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.