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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (menus, dietary labels) but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature. Adequate but could add more 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return details, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words, well-structured.
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 simple retrieval tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, return contents, and prerequisite. It is complete for the complexity level.
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?
The schema describes place_slug as 'The slug of the restaurant'. The description adds an example ('bar-do-ze') and explains its source ('from search_places or a place URL'), adding meaningful context beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the food menu for a specific restaurant, listing exactly what it returns (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_places and search_dishes.
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 explicitly instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to find the place_slug, providing clear prerequisite guidance. It does not mention exclusions, but for this tool, that 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 action and resource, such as booking, checking availability, listing events, or searching dishes. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). The prefixes (create, get, list, search, request, reserve, rsvp, submit) are uniformly applied, and there is no mixing of cases or styles.
With 28 tools, the server covers a broad feature set for a neighborhood directory, including bookings, store, events, loyalty, menus, movies, and more. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose and is justifiable.
The tool surface appears complete for the domain: search, details, booking flows, store purchases, events, loyalty, reviews, blog, offers, profiles, forms, and FAQ are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and operations for CRUD or lifecycle are present where needed.