Fetch a single availability rule by UUID to view or verify tutoring availability data.
Get Availability
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| availability_id | Yes | Availability rule UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| tutor_id | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| day_of_week | No | ||
| schedule_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context—it does not describe response behavior, error cases, or what it returns beyond the existing output schema. It neither contradicts nor enriches the 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no useful information beyond the tool's name and does not earn its place as a standalone description.
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 simple, with one well-described parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so structural information is complete. However, the description fails to clarify the domain meaning of 'availability' or the intended relationship to list_availabilities, leaving an agent to rely on name inference.
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 coverage is 100%: the single required parameter, availability_id, is described as an 'Availability rule UUID'. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries the full semantic load and the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get Availability' simply restates the tool name and annotation title. It identifies a verb and resource but gives no detail about what an availability rule is or how it differs from list_availabilities, so it borders on tautology.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to call this tool instead of list_availabilities or any other sibling. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.