Fetch one page of Culver's restaurant URLs from its public location directory. Use culvers_store for one restaurant or culvers_menu for its menu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional. 1-based page, default 1. | |
| page_size | No | Optional. Entries per page, 1-500, default 100. |
| 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 and open-web profile is covered. The description adds minor context (public source, one page at a time) but says nothing beyond annotations and schema about pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the returned URL set is exhaustive. Adequate but not rich.
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 with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the sibling redirection follows immediately. Nothing is padded or restated.
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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives for a simple paginated list tool. It is complete for calling the tool correctly, missing only optional extra behavioral nuance.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both page and page_size are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what's there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Culver's restaurant URLs from its public location directory) with the scope explicitly bounded to 'one page'. It separates itself from siblings by naming culvers_store and culvers_menu, so an agent can distinguish a directory-list tool from single-store and menu tools without opening any schema.
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?
Names two alternatives (culvers_store for one restaurant, culvers_menu for its menu) and the condition selecting each, which implicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (i.e., when a single store or a menu is wanted). It stops short of an explicit statement of when to reach for the directory (bulk URL harvesting), leaving that to inference.
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.
