Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug, including opening hours, a precomputed open_now boolean, amenity attributes (slugs), a delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links (ifood, rappi, uber-eats — each { platform, url }), ratings, address, and neighborhood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the place, e.g. "cafe-example". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It describes the returned data comprehensively (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, address, neighborhood), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling or authentication requirements.
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, concise sentence that efficiently lists all relevant returned fields without unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned data structure. It lists key fields but does not claim exhaustiveness (uses 'including'). Missing error conditions or auth requirements, but for a simple retrieval tool this 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 the 'slug' parameter already described. The tool description simply repeats the purpose without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as retrieving full details for a specific place by URL slug, listing key fields like opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery, ratings, address, and neighborhood. It distinguishes from sibling search_places by focusing on a single known slug.
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 states when to use (when you have a slug and want full details), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative sibling tools. The context of sibling tools like search_places implies the distinction, but explicit guidance is missing.
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 domain (booking, events, places, food, movies, etc.) with clear boundaries. Even similar actions like reservations are clearly differentiated by context (booking appointment vs. table vs. event tickets vs. RSVP).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive neighborhood directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, FAQs, guides, offers, movies, and more. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main user workflows (searching places, booking services, events, food ordering, loyalty, reviews). Minor gaps like lack of user account management or direct payment handling are acceptable for a directory MCP.