get_businessGet full details for a single Yelp business by its id or alias. Returns rating, review count, price, categories, address, phone, hours, photos, and coordinates. Example: get_business({ id: "garaje-san-francisco" }).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Yelp business id or alias (from search_businesses results). | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own Yelp Fusion API key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "garaje-san-francisco"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "WavvLdfdP6g8aZTtbBQHTw"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false, covering safety. Description adds return fields (rating, review count, etc.) and an example, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 plus a code example. No superfluous words, purpose front-loaded.
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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description lists all key return fields and provides an example. No output schema needed; description is complete.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's example reinforces usage but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'business', clearly stating it retrieves full details for a single business by id or alias. It distinguishes from siblings like search_businesses (multiple results) and get_reviews.
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 provides an example and implies usage from search_businesses results. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention, but the single-business retrieval context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.