bach-yelp_business_api

Get Menus Beta

get_menus_beta

Retrieve restaurant menus from Yelp for a given business ID. Only Yelp-hosted menus are available; personal website menus cannot be collected.

Instructions

Get restaurant menus if present on yelp

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": {
      "business_id": "<business_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_menus_beta"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`business_id`	Yes	Find restaurant menus if present on the Yelp website. Menus on personal websites cannot be collected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful constraint: menus on personal websites cannot be collected. It does not disclose the response shape, whether results can be empty, or any auth/rate-limit behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a read tool with zero annotation support.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is slightly informal in phrasing ('if present on yelp'), but nothing is padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation but omits what a returned menu looks like and that an empty result is possible. Adequate but with identifiable gaps given the lack of annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents business_id and its limitation. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-source detail beyond what the schema field text provides, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Get restaurant menus') with a scoping condition ('if present on yelp'), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings such as popular_dishes or business_details, which also appear to return food-related business data, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'if present' hints at conditional availability, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (reviews, popular_dishes, business_details) or what to do when no menu exists. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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

Deploy Server