Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlora MCP

zomato_restaurant

Read-only

Fetch public Zomato restaurant details from the canonical url returned by zomato_search: contact and location, cuisines, ratings, opening hours, delivery status and ETA, minimum order, and pickup availability. This omits menu items; use zomato_restaurant_menu for the menu or zomato_collection for curated lists.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "zomato_restaurant"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesCanonical public Zomato restaurant URL, from /zomato/search's url field.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds that this fetches public data from a canonical URL and scopes the returned fields, which enriches expectations, though it could note freshness/caching or failure modes for a stale URL.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope and routing. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary; the description covers purpose, source of the required parameter, field scope, exclusions, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines `url`. The description adds provenance semantics by tying the URL to zomato_search's returned url field and calling it 'canonical', which helps agents construct valid calls rather than guessing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (public Zomato restaurant details) and enumerates the fields returned (contact/location, cuisines, ratings, hours, delivery status/ETA, minimum order, pickup). Clearly distinguishable from zomato_restaurant_menu and zomato_collection, which it names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly directs the agent to obtain the `url` from zomato_search's url field, states what is omitted (menu items), and names two alternative tools for those needs. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources