get_visitor_infoReturns practical visitor information for Sedona, AZ — Red Rock Pass requirements, state park hours and fees, popular attractions, best seasons to visit, and local tips. Perfect for tourist queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Category of info — omit for all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| info | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| last_verified | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the types of information returned (pass requirements, hours, attractions, seasons, tips), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence lists the content categories, the second provides context ('Perfect for tourist queries'). Information is front-loaded and every word is useful.
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 simplicity (1 optional parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for its purpose. It covers the scope and provides examples, but could be more explicit about how the output is structured or if certain topics are more detailed. Still, it meets the needs for a straightforward information lookup 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'topic' is fully defined in the input schema, including its enum values and a description. The tool description provides additional examples but does not substantially enhance the semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it returns practical visitor information for Sedona, AZ, listing specific categories like Red Rock Pass, parks, attractions. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'visitor information' are precise, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on general tourist info rather than specific topics like hiking trails or red rock passes.
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 'Perfect for tourist queries', which implies usage context but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus related siblings like get_hiking_trails, get_red_rock_pass, or get_road_conditions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in areas like listener management (get_listener_profile, get_or_create_listener, register_listener, update_listener_preference, log_listener_history) and alerts (get_emergency_alerts, get_nws_alerts, get_fire_restrictions, get_wildfire_perimeters). This can cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent: 'get_', 'search_', 'submit_', 'log_', 'update_', 'register_', 'get_or_create_'. The listener management tools have varying verbs, and there is a mix of specific and generic names. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
At 45 tools, the server is overloaded for its stated purpose as a radio station. It covers many unrelated domains (emergency alerts, hiking, chakras, etc.), which would be better split into separate, focused servers. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.
While the radio-related tools (now playing, requests, schedule, listener management) cover core functionality, the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., hiking trails, chakras, sports scores) dilutes the server's purpose. There are obvious gaps in radio-specific features (e.g., no tool for playlist management or DJ scheduling) but an overabundance of peripheral tools.