Get paginated reviews for a restaurant. Filter by star rating, sort by date or rating. Returns review text, author, rating, date, photos, language, owner response, and rating distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Restaurant URL slug. | |
| sort | No | recent | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| rating | No | Filter by exact star rating. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination (limit, offset), sorting, and filtering capabilities, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The name 'get' implies safety, but explicit disclosure is missing.
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: front-loaded with action and key capabilities, followed by a concise list of return fields. No superfluous content.
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 description covers primary functionality (pagination, filter, sort) and return fields, but lacks mention of response structure (e.g., total count or pagination token) and does not clarify how to interpret the 'rating distribution' field. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 only 40% (slug and rating have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'sort' and 'rating' parameters by stating 'Filter by star rating, sort by date or rating', but does not describe 'limit', 'offset', or 'slug' in detail. Partial compensation, but not full.
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 'Get paginated reviews for a restaurant' with specific actions: filtering by star rating, sorting by date or rating. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_restaurant_details' and 'search_restaurants' by focusing on reviews and pagination.
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 implies usage for retrieving reviews, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned.
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 has a distinct purpose: reservation booking, landmark-based search, cultural context, flow offers, restaurant details, reviews, and general search. No overlapping functionalities.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., book_flow_reservation, get_restaurant_details), making it easy to infer actions.
Seven tools cover the core domain (search, details, reviews, offers, booking, cultural context) without being excessive or insufficient.
Core workflows are covered, but the set lacks reservation cancellation or update functionality, which is a minor gap for a booking system.
