Get the reputation score and verified evidence summary for a vacation rental host. Returns protection stats, evidence count, dispute resolution rate, and verification status. Use this to verify a host's trustworthiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes | Host UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the nature of the returned data (verified evidence summary) and specific output fields, allowing the agent to anticipate what the tool returns without contradicting the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds meaningful detail. It avoids wasted words while covering what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, return content, and intended use case. It provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% with a single parameter (host_id described as Host UUID), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a host's reputation score and verified evidence summary, listing specific output components (protection stats, evidence count, dispute resolution rate, verification status). This distinguishes it from similar siblings like get_vacation_rental_reputation_score, which likely only returns the score.
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 description provides clear usage context (verify a host's trustworthiness), which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so there is room for stronger differentiation.
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.
