fetchGet the full Dim Hour record for one venue by the id returned from search: description, signature dishes, address, hours, phone, happy hour, reservation platform, awards, website and Instagram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Venue id from `search`, in the form 'city:id' e.g. 'nyc:1367' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful but does not describe potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances.
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 immediately states the operation and parameter source, then compactly enumerates the returned fields. Every part is informative with no wasted words.
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 one well-documented parameter, a clear field list, and an output schema present, the description is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no further behavioral caveats are required.
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 schema already documents the id parameter well, including format and an example ('city:id' e.g. 'nyc:1367'). The description restates that the id comes from `search` but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action: get the full Dim Hour record for a venue by id, and enumerates the fields returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_venue, which may serve an overlapping purpose.
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 gives a clear usage context: use the id returned from `search`. It does not, however, explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over get_venue or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
fetch and get_venue both retrieve essentially the same full venue record, differing only by an extra long-form story field. Similarly, search and search_venues both search the same catalog and return ranked venue results, making it unclear which one an agent should call and creating real misselection risk.
The list_* tools are consistent and readable, and most tools use snake_case verb_noun naming. However, fetch and search are bare verbs, and fetch vs get_venue introduces two different verbs for the same operation, so the overall pattern is mixed but still understandable.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a venue guide server, but the count is slightly padded because fetch duplicates get_venue and search duplicates search_venues. The effective surface is closer to five distinct tools, so the count is slightly over what is needed.
The read-only domain is well covered: city discovery, search, curated editorial lists, new venue updates, and full venue details are all present, and search naturally leads into detail retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated non-search way to browse all venues in a city, but the core workflows have no dead ends.