get_proGet one contractor's HomeClip Trust Score, WorkScore, tier, and verification (license) by their HomeClip place_id or id (as found in a profile_url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | HomeClip place_id or id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the input comes from a profile_url but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, required permissions, or data staleness. The description is consistent with 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the outputs (Trust Score, WorkScore, tier, verification) and clearly states the input. No extraneous words.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists returned fields. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the output includes a summary or a single object, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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 schema covers the parameter id with a brief description. The description adds context: the id is a 'HomeClip place_id or id (as found in a profile_url)', which clarifies the source of the identifier, providing added meaning beyond the schema.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'contractor's HomeClip Trust Score, WorkScore, tier, and verification'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'search_pros' (multiple contractors) and 'verify_pro' (likely pure verification), making it unambiguous.
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 implies usage when you have a specific contractor's id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_pros' or 'trust_score_methodology'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_pro for individual details, list_association_members and list_associations for association data, search_pros for searching, trust_score_methodology for explanation, and verify_pro for checking verification. No overlaps.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_pro, list_association_members, list_associations, search_pros, verify_pro), but 'trust_score_methodology' is a noun phrase instead of a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of contractor verification and lookup. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too few nor excessive.
The tools cover core operations: finding pros, getting details, checking verification, exploring associations, and understanding scoring. Minor gaps like bulk listing without a city query or detailed reviews exist, but overall coverage is solid.