food_hygieneFood hygiene ratings for UK businesses, from the Food Standards Agency inspections. Takes a business name, a town or postcode, or a lat/lon to look around
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Optional: look around this point instead | |
| lon | No | Optional: look around this point instead | |
| name | No | Business name, e.g. 'Nandos' | |
| limit | No | How many to return, default 10, max 30 | |
| where | No | Town, street or postcode to narrow it to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations beyond title, so the description must convey behavior. It states the data source and scope (UK, FSA) and that it is a lookup, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions.
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: the first immediately states purpose, the second summarizes search modes. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the most important information.
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?
This is a simple lookup with no output schema or annotations. The description covers purpose and parameters sufficiently, but does not specify the return format or any caveats about data availability, which would be helpful for a UK-specific source.
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 individual parameter descriptions, and the description adds high-level guidance on how to combine them (name vs. location, lat/lon for surrounding area). This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the intended search modes.
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 the tool retrieves food hygiene ratings for UK businesses from Food Standards Agency inspections, which is specific to hygiene rather than generic food search. This distinguishes it from siblings like food_search and food_product.
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?
It implies usage by specifying acceptable inputs (business name, town/postcode, lat/lon), but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.
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.