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 bears full burden. The description discloses return data but does not mention that it is read-only, error behavior, or any side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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: first states purpose, second details return content and prerequisite. No redundancy, front-loaded with key 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?
Given one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns. Missing details on error cases or empty results, but overall 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 coverage is 100%, with place_slug well-described. The description reiterates how to obtain the slug, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers parameter meaning.
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 food menu for a specific restaurant and lists return contents (sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, dietary labels). It distinguishes from sibling tools by requiring a place_slug from search_places or list_categories.
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 advises using search_places or list_categories first to obtain the place_slug, providing clear prerequisite. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for a retrieval tool.
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 action on a specific resource (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, and no two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_availability, list_categories, search_dishes). Verbs like get, list, create, request, rsvp are used uniformly, making the set predictable.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain (places, events, movies, booking, store, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justified for the scope.
The tool surface is extensive, covering searching, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel/update operations), but they are likely intentional given the user-facing nature of the server.
