Retrieve completed rides from a Ryde account, optionally filtered by inclusive start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit dates to view all available ride history.
List completed rides. Dates are inclusive YYYY-MM-DD; omit for all available history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (only completed rides, dates are inclusive, omission returns full history) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination behavior for a potentially unbounded listing.
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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the date-format/default note follows immediately. Every clause carries information.
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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, parameter format, and default behavior adequately. The only real gap is no hint about result volume or ordering when all history is requested, which is minor given the output schema exists.
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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the YYYY-MM-DD format, states that both bounds are inclusive, and explains that omitting the dates returns all available history, covering the null/default semantics of both parameters.
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 and resource ("List completed rides") and narrows scope to completed rides, which distinguishes it from current_ride and ride_detail. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other ride views, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for completed rides and omitting dates returns all history. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ride_summary, ride_detail, or current_ride, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.