Returns the live visit reports of a place or record page: counts (reports, people who went, would recommend, by context), a score from 0 to 1, and the comments, each labeled "A resident of " or "A visitor" with the month. No names. An unknown page returns { "error": "not_found" }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | A page URL or path on littlemilwaukee.com, or a place or record slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: results are live, comments are anonymized ('No names'), and an unknown page yields { "error": "not_found" }. It stops short of describing ordering, limits, or what 'live' means operationally.
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 tight sentences: payload first, then the anonymization rule, then the error contract. Dense and front-loaded, with only minor compression possible in the comments-labeling clause.
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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well (counts, score range, comment format, error sentinel). It leaves open whether comments are truncated or ordered, which matters for a collection-like response.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'page' parameter is already documented as a URL/path/slug. The description restates 'place or record page' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.
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 and resource ('Returns the live visit reports') and then enumerates the payload: counts, a 0-1 score, and labeled comments. An agent can distinguish this from submit_visit_report or get_place purely from the description without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is implied by 'live visit reports of a place or record page' — read reports rather than write one — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_place for the place itself, submit_visit_report for writing). The agent must infer the routing from sibling names.
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.