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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses return content but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), auth requirements, or potential error/empty-menu behavior. It adds some value by listing return fields but is not rich in behavioral context.
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, no fluff, and the most critical information (purpose, return content, prerequisite) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the main purpose, return structure, and prerequisite. It lacks mention of edge cases like a restaurant with no menu, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.
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% and includes an example and source hint for place_slug. The description adds a small extra hint by also mentioning list_categories, but does not significantly go beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('food menu for a specific restaurant'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_place or search_dishes. It also details return contents (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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?
It explicitly states to use search_places or list_categories first to find the place_slug, giving clear prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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 or action (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event), and descriptions provide clear boundaries. Even closely related tools like list_booking_services and list_pricing_plans are differentiated by context.
All 26 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, search_, etc.), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the diversity reflects a multi-featured directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, forms, and more. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The surface covers the core user workflows: search, view details, book services, reserve/RSVP events, request reservations, submit forms, and browse content. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation/update for bookings, no full blog post body), but these are workarounds and not critical for a consumer-facing directory.
