Fetch the stored GPS route for a completed ride using its use_id; explicit sensitive-location acknowledgement is required to include protected location details.
Fetch stored route GPS only after explicit sensitive-location acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_id | Yes | ||
| include_sensitive_location | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 a meaningful precondition about explicit sensitive-location acknowledgement, but it doesn't explain how that acknowledgement is achieved, whether it's enforced server-side, or what happens if it isn't – which is the key behavioral question here.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It's efficient, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the clarity the missing schema docs need.
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?
With an output schema present, return values can be omitted, but the tool still has two undocumented parameters and a potentially sensitive access precondition. For a GPS-location tool with 0% schema coverage and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves important calling requirements unresolved.
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 0%, so the schema only names use_id and include_sensitive_location with no explanation. The description mentions 'sensitive-location acknowledgement' but does not clarify what include_sensitive_location controls, whether it must be true, or what use_id identifies. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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 (Fetch) and resource (stored route GPS) with a notable constraint, but 'route GPS' is terse and there is no differentiation from siblings like ride_detail or current_ride, which likely also return ride data. Purpose is discernible but the boundaries are left to inference.
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 description implies this tool is only for retrieving stored route GPS after acknowledging sensitive location, which gives some contextual usage. But it never says when to use it over ride_detail or current_ride, and the acknowledgement precondition is not operationalized for the caller.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.