Retrieve detailed information for a Yelp business by alias or encoded ID.
Get Yelp business detail. Looks up a single Yelp business by alias or encoded id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Yelp business alias or encoded id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only vs. mutating behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what a failure looks like for an unknown alias. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence largely restates the first ('Get business detail' vs. 'looks up a single business'), so it is slightly redundant rather than perfectly economical.
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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits how to source the id and what the response contains, which would help an agent chain from search to detail.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'alias or encoded id'; the description merely repeats that phrasing without adding format, examples, or how to obtain the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get Yelp business detail') and the scope ('a single Yelp business'), which implicitly separates it from the search siblings. It never names a sibling (e.g., yelp_search or yelp_business_reviews) to make the distinction explicit, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'by alias or encoded id' hints that the caller must already have an identifier, presumably from yelp_search, but the description never says so or states when not to use this tool. No alternatives or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.