Record what actually happened with an entity so future sessions know: outcome one of booked | visited | called | failed | abandoned | other, with an optional short note ("booked via OpenTable for 4"). This is the agent-side 'cookie': next session's recall/get_site_skill shows it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool persists data and is read by future sessions, but does not clarify overwrite vs. append behavior or implications for concurrent sessions. With no annotation support, more detail would improve transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action and outcome list. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured by separating the outcome list from the explanation.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, possible outcomes, and integration with recall/get_site_skill. It does not address error cases or the nature of persistence (overwrite vs. append), but is mostly complete for a straightforward logging tool.
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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It provides enumerated possible values for 'outcome' and an example for 'note', adding meaningful semantics. However, it does not explain 'entity_id' or the default for 'note'.
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 clearly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'outcome for an entity', listing specific possible outcomes (booked, visited, etc.) and explaining its role as an agent-side cookie that future recall/get_site_skill uses, which differentiates it from siblings like 'recall' and 'remember'.
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 description implies when to use (to record an entity outcome for future sessions) and how it relates to recall/get_site_skill, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives among siblings like 'remember'.
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.
There is notable overlap among search, search_web, search_restaurants, and search_salons, as well as between filter_restaurants/filter_salons and search with constraints. However, descriptions clarify the intended vertical or corpus, and entity getters are distinct. The overlap is manageable but could cause misselection.
Names mostly follow a get_/list_/search_/register_/delete_/submit_/vote_ pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations like 'recall', 'remember', 'research', and 'travel_health' are less predictable but still readable. Overall consistent and clear.
38 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical well-scoped range. While the server covers multiple subdomains (search, travel disruptions, memory, feedback, research), the sheer number may overwhelm agents and suggests potential consolidation.
The tool surface covers core workflows: search and entity retrieval for restaurants/salons, disruption monitoring with standing queries and webhooks (register/list/delete), research submission/polling, and memory/feedback mechanisms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel for research jobs, no explicit entity list endpoint), but these are workable and do not break typical agent tasks.