Retrieve location details from ClassQuill tutoring-business data using a location UUID.
Get Location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location_id | Yes | Location UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| suburb | No | ||
| owner_id | No | ||
| postcode | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| is_default | No | ||
| owner_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. It does not describe pagination, authorization, or the meaning of openWorldHint in practice. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes nothing beyond what structured annotations provide.
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 has no structure, no front-loaded context, and no explanatory content; every useful bit of information comes from the schema and annotations, not the 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 a simple single-location getter with a well-covered schema, one required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the structured data carries most of the burden. However, the description still fails to clarify what a location is in this domain or how it relates to list_locations, leaving a clear gap.
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% and the only parameter, location_id, is already documented as a 'Location UUID'. The description 'Get Location' adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it receives the baseline for high schema coverage rather than credit for extra semantics.
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 Location' simply restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an explanation. It does not specify what kind of location is returned, what scope it operates on, or how it differs from siblings like list_locations. This is exactly the restates-name/title case, not a meaningful purpose statement.
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?
There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention that it is the single-item counterpart to list_locations or state any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the name and parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.