service_detailsFetch a Booksy service by ID with its variants and assigned staff, so you can review details and support booking or scheduling workflows.
One service with its variants and assigned staff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| serviceId | Yes | Service id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never mentions the local cache or the freshness trade-off, even though the schema exposes a 'fresh' flag for exactly that, which is the one behavioral nuance an agent would want surfaced.
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 short sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. But conciseness here shades into under-specification: it is short because it omits usage guidance and cache behavior, not because it efficiently packs 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?
There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming what comes back (variants, assigned staff), which is useful. For a two-parameter read tool that is nearly adequate, but it leaves caching/staleness and the intended lookup use case unexplained.
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%, with both serviceId and fresh fully documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or freshness semantics beyond what the schema already states, and the mention of variants/staff describes the response rather than the inputs.
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 phrase "One service with its variants and assigned staff" implies a single-resource read keyed by serviceId, and the singular framing distinguishes it loosely from list-style siblings like service_menu and service_addons. However, there is no explicit verb and no positive differentiation from those siblings, so an agent gets the gist but must infer.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus service_menu, service_addons, or resource_details. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing — the agent is left to guess 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.