get_roofscope_delivery_optionsRetrieve standard and rush delivery surcharges for RoofScope products by size band, so you can compare shipping costs before placing or upgrading a report order.
The extra charge for standard and rush delivery, per RoofScope product and size band.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-lookup behavior are covered. The description adds the useful granularity detail (results are keyed per product and size band), but says nothing about response shape or rate limits.
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?
One short sentence with no filler; the distinguishing detail (delivery surcharge vs. base price) is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens the framing.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back — the field(s) for the standard and rush surcharge and how rows are keyed. It hints at product/size-band keying but leaves the return contract and any empty-result behavior unspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to carry. The description's mention of product/size-band granularity refers to the returned data, not 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 description states a specific resource — the extra charge for standard and rush delivery, broken out per RoofScope product and size band — which is enough to separate it from get_roofscope_prices (base product pricing). It lacks a verb phrase, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup for shipping surcharges rather than base prices. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against get_roofscope_prices or search_roofscope_scopes, and no statement of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.