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 describes return data but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy or extraneous 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?
For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and parameter source. Lacks mention of potential empty results or error handling, but sufficient for agent decision-making.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description. Tool description adds an example ('bar-do-ze') and source (from search_places or URL), enhancing understanding beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'food menu' with detailed return fields (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels). Distinguishes from siblings like search_dishes (searching) and get_place (place info).
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 states prerequisite: use search_places or list_categories first to find the place_slug. Provides clear guidance on how to obtain the required parameter.
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 and action. Even similar operations like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and the entities they handle (bookable services, restaurant tables, paid events, free events). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). This uniform convention makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to understand and select from.
With 28 tools, the set is relatively large, exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While each tool serves a specific purpose within the neighborhood directory domain, the count feels heavy and may overwhelm simple use cases. A reduction or grouping could improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range of user-facing operations for a neighborhood directory: searching places, browsing menus, booking services, reserving tables and event tickets, listing products and events, retrieving reviews and FAQs, and submitting forms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation or create_review tool), but the core workflows are well-supported.
