get_roofscope_pricesCheck account-specific report prices by product, property type, and size band to confirm costs before ordering RoofScope, GutterScope, and other reports.
What each RoofScope report costs on this account, by product, property type and size band (e.g. "RoofScope-Residential-Greater Than 50 SQ": 69.95).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | Only this product's prices. |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that prices are account-specific and per-product/size-band, but does not discuss caching, volatility, or whether prices can change mid-session.
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 front-loaded sentence covering what, scope, grouping dimensions, and an example value. No filler whatsoever.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by showing the shape of a returned entry ('RoofScope-Residential-Greater Than 50 SQ': 69.95'), which is what an agent needs to parse results. Minor gap: it doesn't say how many entries or whether size bands are exhaustive.
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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'by product' only confirms what is already there. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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 (per-report prices on this account) and its keying dimensions (product, property type, size band), plus a concrete example key/value. It is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools like search_roofscope_scopes and get_roofscope_delivery_options, though it never names them.
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 pricing lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note that no filter returns all products, and no mention of alternatives. Adequate for a single-purpose lookup but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.