Read only: for an urgent or emergency visit, the shop's field workers and owners ranked by who is free (no overlapping visit, not on time off, inside their hours) and then by the fewest visits that day. Suggestions only; assign with visits.assign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| visit_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ends_at | Yes | ||
| priority | Yes | ||
| visit_id | Yes | ||
| starts_at | Yes | ||
| candidates | Yes | ||
| assignee_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so by declaring 'Read only' and 'Suggestions only'. It also discloses the ranking algorithm (free first, then fewest visits that day) and the availability conditions checked, though it omits result limits or permissions.
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 with zero waste. The read-only constraint is front-loaded, followed by the ranking logic and the hand-off to the assignment tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, safety, and ranking behavior well. The main gap is the missing explanation of the two input parameters, which matters given 0% schema coverage.
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 0%, yet the description never explains the required visit_id or the optional limit parameter. The phrase 'for an urgent or emergency visit' implies the visit context but does not tell the agent which field to pass or what limit does, leaving both parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource (suggest dispatch candidates for a visit), scopes it to urgent/emergency visits, and explains the ranking criteria. It distinguishes itself from visits_assign by explicitly framing the output as suggestions only.
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 a clear triggering condition ('for an urgent or emergency visit') and names the follow-up tool (visits.assign). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools such as schedule_findTime for non-urgent scheduling, but the core routing 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.