Find French cultural venues (theaters, concert halls, museums…) by name and/or city. Returns canonical venues with coordinates and the number of shows currently playing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| query | No | Venue name, fuzzy-matched |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool finds venues and returns coordinates and show counts, but it fails to mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality and output in a compact manner. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (canonical venues, coordinates, number of shows). It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable. Could be more complete with a note about result ordering or available venue types.
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 50%, with 'query' having a description ('fuzzy-matched') and 'city' having none. The description clarifies that both parameters can be used and that 'query' is used for venue name with fuzzy matching. However, it does not explain if 'city' is case-sensitive, requires full name, or any other validation rules.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'French cultural venues' with examples (theaters, concert halls, museums) and specifies the result includes coordinates and show counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_shows or whats_on.
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 indicates when to use: for finding venues by name and/or city. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like 'search' or 'get_show'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
