get_placeGet the full structured record for one place — any of the 14 Southeast Asian cities — by its Booyah Index slug (from search_places results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The place slug, e.g. "ongtong-khaosoi-ari-branch-8cszby" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the geographic scope (14 cities) and the provenance of the slug, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentence that front-loads the action (Get the full structured record), includes necessary constraints (14 cities, slug source), and contains no extraneous information. It is well-structured and concise.
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?
For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and input source. The phrase 'full structured record' gives a sense of the return value, and the annotations cover safety. It lacks explicit error behavior but that is not critical for this simple tool.
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 slug parameter with an example at 100% coverage. The description adds semantic value by calling it a 'Booyah Index slug' and specifying it should come from search_places results, giving the agent guidance on how to obtain the correct value.
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 'Get the full structured record for one place' with a specific verb and resource, and scopes it to 'any of the 14 Southeast Asian cities.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product and search_places by specifying exactly what it retrieves and the input method.
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 says 'by its Booyah Index slug (from search_places results),' which implies a workflow of searching first and then retrieving a specific record. It provides clear context on when to use this tool but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_places and search_products handle search across different entity types, get_place/get_product/get_store handle retrieval by identifier, and list_cities provides metadata. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_, search_, get_. The verbs are semantically appropriate (list for enumeration, search for queries, get for retrieval) and the nouns clearly identify the resource being operated on.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only search and retrieval API covering two entity types (places and products) plus supporting metadata (cities and stores). Each tool serves a distinct need, and the count is neither too small to be useful nor too large to manage.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the stated purpose of discovery and retrieval: users can list coverage cities, search for places and products, retrieve full records for both, and access store details. The read-only nature is explicit, so there are no missing CRUD operations. The workflow from city to search to retrieve to store is fully supported.