Fetch full public details for one business listing by id, including contact info (phone, WhatsApp, email, website). Use the id returned by search_businesses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing id, as returned by search_businesses (accepts string or number) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Listing id"New value: +"Listing id, as returned by search_businesses (accepts string or number)"Input schema / properties / id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / id / minimumRemoved value: --9007199254740991Input schema / properties / id / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data returned is 'public' details only and includes specific contact channels, setting expectations about field scope. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for unknown/missing ids.
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, zero waste, and the purpose with its payload is front-loaded before the sourcing instruction. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 compensates by naming the return contents, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple single-id lookup it is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (unknown id, partial data) is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the string-or-number acceptance. The description's 'by id' and the search_businesses provenance note largely restate the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Fetch full public details') and resource ('one business listing by id') with the notable payload enumerated (phone, WhatsApp, email, website). It is immediately distinguishable from search_businesses (search) and list_categories without opening either 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 ties invocation to the sibling: 'Use the id returned by search_businesses,' which tells the agent when this tool is the correct follow-up. It gives no when-not guidance (e.g., when a search result already contains the needed fields), so it stops short of 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.