search_attractionsSearch China attractions by city slug and/or keyword (English or Chinese name). Returns slug, name, whether reservation is required, release rule, and page URL. Use get_booking_guide for full booking steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City slug from list_cities, e.g. beijing, shanghai, xian, chengdu | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Keyword, e.g. "great wall", "故宫", "panda" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered; the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (slug, name, reservation requirement, release rule, page URL) in the absence of an output schema. It does not describe ranking, pagination, or empty-result behavior, so it is not exhaustive.
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 with no redundancy: purpose and filter dimensions first, then return fields, then the sibling hand-off. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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 usefully summarizes return fields, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (pagination, total counts, ordering) for a search tool that caps at 50 results, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 67%: city and query are documented in the schema, and limit is self-explanatory via default/min/max. The description reinforces that the filters are combinable ('and/or') and that keywords work in English or Chinese, which adds modest meaning beyond the schema but no syntax or matching rules.
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 (Search) and resource (China attractions) plus the filtering dimensions (city slug and/or keyword), including that keywords may be English or Chinese. It also names the sibling tool get_booking_guide, so an agent can separate search from booking without opening the 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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_booking_guide for booking steps, establishing a clear division of labor with that sibling. It does not explicitly mention list_cities as the source of city slugs (only the schema does), and states no when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.
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.