Fetch menu items for any Yelp business using its alias or encoded ID, with no login, API key, or cookie required.
Get Yelp business menu. Fetches menu items for a Yelp business via Yelp's real Android app backend. Credential-free: no login, no API key, no cookie required from the caller.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating the data is fetched 'via Yelp's real Android app backend' and that it is 'credential-free: no login, no API key, no cookie required from the caller.' This clearly addresses authentication requirements and the backend source, though it does not discuss rate limits or return structure in detail.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and adds only relevant backend and credential information. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, the input identifier, and credential requirements. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the phrase 'Fetches menu items' gives a basic sense of the return value. Minor gaps like failure modes or pagination prevent a perfect score.
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 provides full coverage of the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Yelp business alias or encoded id.' The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Yelp business menu' and 'Fetches menu items for a Yelp business.' This distinguishes it from sibling Yelp tools like yelp_business, yelp_business_photos, and yelp_business_reviews, which have different data focuses.
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 the tool should be used when the caller needs menu items for a Yelp business, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.