Culver's menu category items: name, description, image, nutrition link. No price on the national catalog -- Culver's prices items only once a restaurant is selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Required. Category slug from /culvers/categories. |
| 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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the national catalog carries no price and pricing appears only after a restaurant is selected. That preempts a common agent misstep. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.
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 short sentences with the field list front-loaded and the pricing caveat second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers them and adds the pricing limitation that an agent would otherwise get wrong. For a one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.
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% and the schema itself documents the single category parameter as required with its source (/culvers/categories). The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.
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 names a specific resource (Culver's menu category items) and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it from siblings like culvers_categories (category list) and culvers_item (single item). It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a noun phrase, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage context is only implied: the schema says the slug comes from /culvers/categories, and the description warns that prices require selecting a restaurant, hinting the agent should pair this with a store lookup. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so guidance is inferential rather than explicit.
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.
