Retrieve an OpenTable restaurant's menus, including sections, items, and prices, using a restaurant ID. No credentials required.
Get an OpenTable restaurant's menus. Returns a restaurant's menus (sections, items, prices). Credential-free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| restaurant_id | Yes | OpenTable restaurant id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that no credentials are needed and states the return content (sections, items, prices). It does not mention potential failure modes or that it is a read-only operation, but 'Get' makes that apparent. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. No redundancy or filler.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells what is returned and that it's credential-free. It could mention how to obtain the restaurant_id, but that is likely discoverable elsewhere, so minor gap.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with 'OpenTable restaurant id'. The description adds no further parameter details (e.g., where to find the ID or its format). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the single parameter.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('OpenTable restaurant's menus'), and enumerates returns ('sections, items, prices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opentable_restaurant (restaurant details) and opentable_restaurant_reviews (reviews).
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 it: whenever you need an OpenTable restaurant's menus. It also notes 'Credential-free', which is a useful access guideline. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for menu data only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.