ninenine_ride_historyRetrieve past passenger ride history from 99Pop and 99Moto with read-only access. Select privacy mode (summary, structured, raw) and response format (markdown or JSON) to suit your needs.
Past passenger rides. Read-only. GPS polylines redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'GPS polylines redacted' beyond what annotations provide, alerting agents that full GPS trails will not be returned. 'Read-only' reinforces the annotations without contradicting them. This is meaningful behavioral context for a data-returning tool.
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 phrases with zero filler. The core purpose, safety trait, and key data limitation are all front-loaded in fewer than ten words. This is appropriately concise for a simple read-only list tool.
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?
Adequate for a read-only history tool: the agent knows the purpose and the redaction constraint. However, the meaning of the two parameters, especially the privacy_mode enum, is undocumented, which could matter when the agent must choose 'summary' vs 'structured' vs 'raw'. No output schema exists to fill that gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of what 'privacy_mode' values (summary/structured/raw) or 'response_format' mean for the output. The enums are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the semantic difference between the three privacy modes is left entirely to the agent's guess.
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 identifies the resource ('past passenger rides') and the read-only nature, making it clear this is a history lookup. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like nine_track_ride and nine_active_ride by the word 'past', though it lacks an explicit verb or a named sibling comparison.
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 phrase 'Past passenger rides' implies this tool is for historical ride data, which distinguishes it from active/track/request/cancel siblings. However, no explicit 'when to use' or 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.