Save hours every week. This roi analyze tool toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about what the tool actually does, what it returns, or whether the optional query changes behavior. "Save hours every week" and "works in any LLM chatbot" are marketing claims, not behavioral facts an agent can act on.
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?
Only three short sentences, but they are front-loaded with a benefit claim rather than the tool's function. Almost every phrase ("Save hours every week", "No setup, works in any LLM chatbot") is filler that does not earn 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, and it leaves the actual analysis behavior, expected inputs, and output shape entirely unspecified. For a tool whose name claims ROI analysis, an agent is left guessing what 'analyze' produces.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'query' parameter, so per the baseline rule the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about what a scoped analysis changes, so it neither helps nor harms 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 mostly restates the name ("This roi analyze tool toolkit") and adds promotional framing ("battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth") rather than stating a concrete action and output. An agent cannot tell from this how it differs from the many sibling roi-* tools (roi-board-tool, roi-diag-tool, roi-formula-tool, roi-tpl-tool), none of which are mentioned.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no alternative tool named. The only hints are a domain (restaurant/brand growth) and a claim that it needs "no setup", which does not tell an agent when to select this over the roi-* siblings.
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.