Status do Clube Cancun4me do hospede: se e membro ativo (creditos de 20% da primeira reserva e 10% das seguintes, para a proxima reserva, + acesso ao assistente de roteiro), quando expira, e quantas mensagens de IA de roteiro ainda restam hoje (se membro).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses conditional behavior (remaining messages only if member) and explains membership benefits, which adds useful context. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or address token requirements or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.
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, information-dense sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds details. It is readable and not bloated, though the parenthetical benefit details could potentially be more succinct.
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 adequately explains the return values and conditional logic for members, which is important given no output schema. However, it omits any explanation of the required token input and does not address potential errors or edge cases, making it only moderately complete for a simple tool.
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 token parameter is completely unexplained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what the token is, its format, or how to obtain it, but it does not, leaving the agent without guidance for this required parameter.
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 it returns the guest's Cancun4me Club status, including membership validity, benefits, expiration, and remaining AI itinerary messages. It is specific to membership status and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_order_status or join_club.
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 checking membership status but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The context is clear enough for selecting this tool over others, but without direct wording, it remains at the implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.