Read-only public discovery for Blastak, a WhatsApp-first appointment booking platform for Moroccan salons, clinics and service businesses. Two tools return official public routes and machine-readable discovery document URLs. No authentication required. It does not create bookings, send messages or access customer data. Blastak supports French, English and Arabic interfaces. Fictional client/owner demo: https://blastak.app/b/demo.
Scored across 2 tools
Both tools do essentially the same thing — return URLs — differing only in whether those URLs are 'discovery documents' or 'public routes.' An agent could reasonably pick either for a generic navigation lookup, though the descriptions do hint at a distinction.
Both tools follow an identical convention: the 'blastak_' namespace prefix plus a clear verb_noun pattern (get_discovery_documents, get_public_routes). Fully predictable and readable.
Two tools is thin even for a discovery-oriented server, and both are read-only URL listers. It's not an extreme mismatch, but the surface feels under-built for the stated purpose.
The server is billed as 'WhatsApp Appointment Booking' yet exposes no booking, availability, appointment, or messaging operations — only discovery metadata. The core domain lifecycle is entirely absent, leaving agents at a dead end for any actual booking task.
Return Blastak machine-readable discovery document URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns URLs (a read operation with no side effects), which is useful, but it does not state auth requirements, output format, or whether the call is safe/idempotent. For a zero-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what is returned. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action but omits context an agent might need, such as when to choose this over the sibling tool or what the returned URLs represent. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail.
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 clear verb ('Return') and resource ('Blastak machine-readable discovery document URLs'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool blastak_get_public_routes, but the resource noun itself is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool blastak_get_public_routes is never mentioned, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return key public Blastak URLs for navigation and discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read operation, whether it requires auth, what 'key' means, whether the list is static or dynamic, or anything about the return format beyond 'URLs'.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word contributes to meaning.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is thin for an agent needing to know what it will receive or under what conditions it should call this versus the sibling. 'Key public URLs' is vague about content and scope.
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?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 (Return) and resource (key public Blastak URLs), and adds the intent (navigation and discovery). It distinguishes itself reasonably from the sibling blastak_get_discovery_documents, though it doesn't name the alternative.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'navigation and discovery' provides a vague hint of context but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
blastak_get_discovery_documentsblastak_get_public_routes
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.