List Chipotle's named preset meal combinations, IDs, types, and included components. Use chipotle_menu for the general menu or chipotle_restaurant_menu to inspect items at a particular restaurant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result contains meal names, IDs, types, and components, but with an output schema present even that is largely redundant, and no auth, rate-limit, or error behavior is disclosed.
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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing guidance second. Every sentence earns 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?
For a simple zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. There is nothing in the schema for the description to clarify or compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Chipotle's named preset meal combinations'), and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, types, included components). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from chipotle_menu and chipotle_restaurant_menu, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly names the two alternative sibling tools and the condition that selects each ('general menu' vs. 'items at a particular restaurant'). The first sentence establishes this tool's scope, so there is no ambiguity about when to use it.
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.
