Fetch menu items for a Yelp business using its alias or encoded ID via Crawlora MCP. Return structured JSON for menu displays, comparisons, or food research.
Get Yelp business menu. Fetches menu items for a Yelp business.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: not whether menus exist only for restaurants, what happens if no menu is available, whether the call needs auth, or what the response shape is. It only restates that menu items are returned.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the two sentences are near-tautological ('Get Yelp business menu' vs 'Fetches menu items for a Yelp business'), so the second sentence does not earn its place. Not bloated, just redundant.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what resource is returned. It omits any caveat about menu availability and return format, which for this domain (menus exist only for some businesses) is a meaningful 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description ('Yelp business alias or encoded id') already covers the format, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that the id refers to a Yelp business, which the schema says anyway.
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 (Get/Fetches) and resource (Yelp business menu / menu items), so an agent can distinguish this from yelp_business_reviews or yelp_business_photos. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun is specific enough to route correctly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (yelp_business, yelp_business_reviews) that an agent would need to choose between. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.