Get the full menu of a meni.ge location: categories, items with prices, variant groups and addons, currency and ordering capabilities. domain = uppercase location code from the QR/menu URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Location domain code, e.g. MYCAFE | |
| language | No | ISO 639-1 menu language, default en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context: the domain parameter should be an uppercase location code from the QR/menu URL, and it lists the return contents. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature, but given the nature of a get operation, it is adequate.
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 listing what the tool returns, followed by a brief note on the domain parameter. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 adequately explains the return components (categories, items, prices, etc.). Both parameters are covered. Sibling tools exist but no explicit differentiation is needed for completeness. It could mention response size or pagination, but for a menu retrieval tool it is sufficient.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning for the domain parameter by specifying it comes from a QR/menu URL and must be uppercase. This goes beyond the schema's simple example, providing useful guidance for invocation.
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 the tool gets the full menu of a meni.ge location, listing specific components (categories, items, prices, variant groups, addons, currency, ordering capabilities). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_item which likely focuses on a single item.
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 implies usage for retrieving the full menu but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_item. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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 targets a distinct resource/action: menu, item, search, cart, order, reservation, availability, store info, and policies. Even similar tools like get_item vs search_products are clearly differentiated by exact lookup vs semantic search. There is no meaningful overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, create_, cancel_, check_, update_, search_). No mixed conventions or stylistic deviations exist.
13 tools is well-scoped for the guest-facing restaurant domain, covering menu browsing, search, cart, orders, reservations, store info, and policies. Each tool is justified and the count is within the ideal range.
Core lifecycle coverage is solid: menu, cart, order placement/status, reservations, and availability are all covered. The only notable gap is the absence of an order cancellation tool, but this may be intentional and does not block primary workflows.