Retrieve maintenance inspections from Rentvine, showing title, property, unit, scheduled date, status, and inspector for each.
List maintenance inspections from Rentvine (live data). Returns title, property, unit, scheduled date, status, and inspector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state 'live data,' which communicates freshness and implies a network call rather than a cache. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or any read-only guarantees. For a simple list tool this is a partial but acceptable disclosure.
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 sentences with the action and source up front, then the return fields. No fluff, no repetition of the tool name beyond what is needed. Every word adds 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main context: what is listed, sourced, and what fields are returned. Pagination or result limits are not mentioned, but for this simple read-only list tool the description is nearly complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters)SkipThe input schema is empty and there are no parameters to documentikuha. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. No parameter semantics are missing.
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 uses a specific verb (list) plus a specific resource (maintenance inspections) and clearly names the source (Rentvine). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the object type (inspections vs. work orders, properties, etc.) and enumerating the exact fields returned, which disambiguates it from generic list_* siblings.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it versus the many sibling listing tools. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The 'maintenance inspections' wording implies the use case, but there is no explicit routing to alternatives or contextual hints about when it is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.