Fetch one Culver's custard flavor record by slug, including declared allergens, component ingredients, and flavor-category labels. Get the slug from culvers_calendar; use culvers_item or culvers_menu for menu items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Required. Flavor slug from /culvers/calendar or /culvers/store. |
| 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 content context (allergens, ingredients, category labels), but that overlaps with the output schema and it discloses nothing about rate limits, auth, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich beyond structured fields.
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, front-loaded with verb and scope, with the routing guidance second. Zero wasted words.
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 needn't be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description supplies the remaining agent need: what the record contains and where to get the slug.
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 slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the source of the slug (culvers_calendar) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.
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), resource (one Culver's custard flavor record), and scope (single, by slug), then enumerates the returned contents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to culvers_item and culvers_menu for menu items.
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 tells the agent where to obtain the slug (culvers_calendar) and names the alternatives (culvers_item, culvers_menu) for the case of menu items. Routing 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.
