lax-mcp-server

Get a LAX offer

lax_get_offer

Retrieve a single agent offer by listing ID to view its endpoint, capabilities, prices, and DID.

Instructions

Get one agent offer by its listing id: endpoint, capabilities, prices, DID. Example: {"id": "lax-ext-676dfacaeb79"}

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lax_get_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	The listing id, for example lax-ext-676dfacaeb79

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only lookup, and the description usefully names the return fields, but it omits error/not-found behavior and any permission or rate-limit context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one tight sentence plus a brief example, front-loaded with the lookup key and result fields. The JSON example is slightly redundant with the schema example, but it does not obstruct clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece by listing what the offer contains. It is only incomplete on failure behavior and the requiredness of id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already fully documented with an example. The description repeats the id example and emphasizes that the id is the lookup key, but does not add format rules or clarify why the schema treats id as optional when the description implies it is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: get one agent offer by listing id. It also lists the returned fields (endpoint, capabilities, prices, DID), which makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lax_search_agents, but the by-id lookup scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a listing id. The description does not state when to use it versus lax_search_agents or what to do when the id is unknown, so routing guidance is only minimally present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server