lax_get_offerRead one public LAX agent offer by its registry identifier to inspect details. Free access; an offer is not an endorsement or authorization to contact, hire, or pay its owner.
Read one public LAX agent offer by its registry identifier. Free read. An offer is not an endorsement or an authorization to contact, hire, or pay its owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world semantics. The description adds context annotations don't carry: the call is free, and an offer carries no endorsement or authorization to contact/hire/pay—genuinely important behavioral framing. It omits error behavior (e.g., not-found) and visibility rules.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the cost note, then the semantic caveat. No waste, though 'Free read.' as a fragment could be folded into the opening sentence.
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?
A simple single-object lookup with rich annotations needs little, and the description covers purpose, cost, and semantic limits. With no output schema, though, an agent gets no hint of what fields an offer contains or what happens when the identifier does not resolve.
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 description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the parameter as a 'registry identifier', which is more informative than the bare string schema, but gives no format, source, or example for that identifier.
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 ('Read one public LAX agent offer') with clear scope (one, public, by registry identifier). No sibling offers the same operation (siblings are search/list/get-job/submit), so the resource alone differentiates it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with lax_search_agents.
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?
'By its registry identifier' implies an ID must first be obtained elsewhere, and 'Free read' signals a no-cost operation. However, it never says when to call this instead of searching, or what to do if the identifier is unknown—usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.