Search Rover dog trainers by location and return experience, ratings, prices, methods, and skill tags. Use rover_trainer_profile for one trainer or rover_sitter_search for sitters and walkers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Free-text address, city, or zip code, e.g. \ |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / location / descriptionAdded value: +"Free-text address, city, or zip code, e.g. \\"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context (no result limits, radius behavior, or rate limits), and the list of returned fields is already implied by the output schema. Adequate but not additive.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the sibling routing second. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter, read-only search with an output schema and annotation-covered safety, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including disambiguation from rover_trainer_profile and rover_sitter_search.
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?
Only one parameter (location) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The phrase 'by location' merely echoes the schema; no format, radius, or normalization semantics are added. Baseline 3 is correct here.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Rover dog trainers), scopes it by location, and enumerates the return content. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, rover_trainer_profile and rover_sitter_search, so an agent can route without opening any 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 second sentence names both alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: one trainer -> rover_trainer_profile, sitters and walkers -> rover_sitter_search. This is explicit when-to-use-routing rather than inferred guidance.
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.