Retrieve the authenticated user's past service requests and completed jobs, optionally filtered by trade category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default 10) | |
| filter_trade | No | Filter results to a specific trade category |
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?
With no annotations, the description relies on the word 'Retrieve' to indicate a read-only operation and 'authenticated user's' to indicate auth requirements. It provides basic behavior but does not disclose pagination details, sorting, or error handling beyond what the schema hints.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and optional filtering 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 description is complete for a simple read-only list tool: it identifies the scope, content, and optional filter. Return format is implied, and the limit parameter is documented in the schema, so no critical information is missing.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for both parameters. The description only restates that filtering by trade is optional, adding no new semantic value 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 clearly states the action (Retrieve), the resource (past service requests and completed jobs), and scope (authenticated user). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like home_profile and service_search by focusing on historical jobs.
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 for looking at a user's past activity, which distinguishes it from profile tools. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as service_search for active services.
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.