Fetch one Panera cafe's active per-order quantity limits, affected item IDs, day window, and maximum quantity. Use this when checking order constraints for a known cafe and item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cafe_id | Yes | Required. Panera cafe id, from /panera/locations. |
| 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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and 'Fetch' reinforces the read nature. The description adds that only *active* limits are returned with a day window, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not cover rate limits, auth, or pagination.
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 tight sentences with zero waste; the object of the fetch is front-loaded before the use condition. 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?
With an output schema present and a single well-documented parameter, the description tells the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. It is nearly complete, only missing sibling/alternative routing context.
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 single cafe_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (/panera/locations). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (per-order quantity limits for one Panera cafe), and enumerates the concrete fields returned (affected item IDs, day window, maximum quantity). It is clearly distinguishable from menu/item siblings by resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 second sentence gives a clear use condition: 'when checking order constraints for a known cafe and item.' There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.
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.
