list_association_membersList the verified member contractors of a HomeClip trade association, plus what that association's membership requires (e.g. insurance, qualification) — useful for trades a state doesn't license.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| association | Yes | Association slug or name, e.g. 'roofing-contractors-association-of-texas'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context that members are 'verified' and that requirements are included, enhancing transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 a single sentence that conveys purpose, content, and use case efficiently. It is front-loaded and not verbose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for members vs requirements).
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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (members and requirements). For a simple tool with one parameter, this is sufficient context for an agent.
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% and the parameter description includes an example. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'verified member contractors of a HomeClip trade association', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'list_associations' which lists associations themselves. It also states what is returned (members plus requirements) and a use case.
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 mentions a use case ('useful for trades a state doesn't license'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pros' or 'verify_pro'. It lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer.
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.