Manage the authenticated user's home profile — view or update property details like square footage, year built, and systems installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Whether to retrieve or update the home profile | |
| fields | No | Fields to update when action is 'update' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the view/update behavior, but it does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, return structure, or implications of updating, leaving notable gaps.
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 that efficiently conveys purpose, resource, and examples without any wasted 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?
The tool is relatively simple (get/update with a fields object), and the description covers the core behavior, but without an output schema or annotations, it doesn't explain return values or update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), leaving some contextual gaps.
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 already describes 'action' and 'fields', but the description adds examples of updatable properties ('square footage, year built, systems installed'), giving concrete meaning to the generic 'fields' object parameter.
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 resource ('home profile') and the actions ('view or update'), with concrete examples of properties. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the home profile specifically, not job history or provider profiles.
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?
It gives clear context that this is for the authenticated user's home profile, which differentiates it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: home profile management, job history retrieval, provider profile viewing, and service provider search. No overlap exists between their purposes.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case compounds, but the pattern is not uniform: home_profile, job_history, and provider_profile are noun_noun, while service_search is noun_verb. This minor deviation is still predictable and readable.
With 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to a home services domain, covering both user-facing and provider-facing operations without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflows (searching providers, viewing provider details, accessing user home/job history) are covered. However, missing actions like booking a service or submitting a review represent minor gaps.