stuart_validate_jobCheck that a job would be accepted (addresses geocode inside a covered zone, fields valid) without creating it. Returns {valid}. Stuart: POST /v2/jobs/validate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pickup | Yes | The single pickup point. | |
| dropoffs | Yes | 1 to 8 dropoff points. | |
| pickup_at | No | ISO 8601 time the courier should arrive at the pickup. Omit to dispatch immediately. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it confirms no job is created, specifies what is validated, and states the return shape as {valid}. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the safety profile is already provided by 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 compact sentences with no filler. The purpose and no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded, and the return shape and endpoint are included without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a validation tool with a rich input schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough: it explains what is validated, that no job is created, and what is returned. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a job would be accepted without creating it. The phrase 'without creating it' cleanly distinguishes it from stuart_create_job, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening its schema.
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 clearly implies the use case: pre-validating a job before creation, including the checks performed (geocoding/covered zone and field validity). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like stuart_validate_address or stuart_estimate_price, but the context is clear.
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.