Get the food menu for a specific restaurant on this site. Returns menus with their sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, and dietary labels (vegan, gluten-free, etc). Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | Yes | The slug of the restaurant, e.g. "bar-do-ze" (from search_places or a place URL). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return data (menus, sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels) but does not mention safety, side effects, 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return data, then prerequisite instruction. No unnecessary words.
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 1 parameter and no output schema, description explains return values adequately. Lacks mention of error cases or pagination, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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 already covers the parameter (place_slug) with example and source. Description adds only a usage hint that overlaps with schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no significant additional semantic value.
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 'Get the food menu for a specific restaurant' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like search_dishes and get_place.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisite advice: 'Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.' Clearly guides when to use, though lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.
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.