demo_walkthroughReturns yesmcp's demo sequence: the exact prompts a reviewer can replay, the tool call each one maps to, and what each should return. Also gives the review-access token and the currently open [TEST] reviewer windows. Intended for directory reviewers and for anyone who wants a guided tour of this connector; it changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The description discloses the exact return payload, including prompts, mappings, expected outputs, the review-access token, and currently open reviewer windows. It also explicitly states 'it changes nothing,' reinforcing the read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent annotations with additional behavioral context.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary return value, then adds the token/window context, and closes with audience and safety. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only walkthrough tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, who it is for, and that it has no side effects. Annotations already cover safety, and no output schema is needed given the detailed description of the return content.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a distinct resource (yesmcp's demo sequence), and details the content: prompts, mapped tool calls, expected returns, token, and open reviewer windows. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like book_consult, directory_census, and cancel_booking, which represent actual connector actions rather than a walkthrough.
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 explicitly states the intended audience: directory reviewers and anyone wanting a guided tour of the connector. It also reassures that the tool 'changes nothing,' providing clear context for safe use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct: booking lifecycle (book, cancel, reschedule, availability), services, scenarios, and meta tools each target different actions. The widget/non-widget pairs (book_consult vs booking_widget, get_services vs services_widget) and list_availability vs booking_widget could cause confusion, but the descriptions explicitly state which to prefer and when.
Most tools follow verb_noun (book_consult, cancel_booking, reschedule_booking, get_services, list_availability, advise_scenarios), but four break the pattern with noun_noun or gerund forms (booking_widget, services_widget, directory_census, demo_walkthrough). The mix is readable but inconsistent, especially the widget pairings that differ from their non-widget counterparts.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a consultation and advisory service server. Each tool earns its place: full booking lifecycle, services catalog, scenario playbooks, and reviewer-facing meta tools. No redundant or filler tools.
The booking lifecycle is fully covered (list, book, cancel, reschedule) plus interactive widgets, and services/scenario discovery is solid. The only notable gap is that cancel/reschedule require the email confirmation reference — there is no 'list my bookings' tool to look up bookings by email. The demo/census tools are meta but deliberately scoped.