Fetch thematic review snippets for a Yelp business to see extracted talking points with supporting quotes. Provide the business alias or encoded ID.
Get Yelp business review highlights. Fetches thematic review snippets (extracted talking points with a supporting quote) 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the returned content (extracted talking points with quotes) but says nothing about pagination, count of highlights returned, auth, or rate limits. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but incomplete.
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 core action and then the data shape. There is mild redundancy between 'Get... review highlights' and 'Fetches thematic review snippets', but no 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, the description conveys what the tool returns and enough scope to call it. The main omission is any routing versus sibling review tools, but the core call contract is complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Yelp business alias or encoded id'. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier format or accepted values, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 review highlights), and elaborates that the payload is 'thematic review snippets (extracted talking points with a supporting quote)'. This differentiates it from raw review siblings, though it never names yelp_business_reviews or yelp_business_reviews_search explicitly.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like yelp_business_reviews and yelp_business_reviews_search in the same namespace, the description offers no routing criteria; the agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase 'highlights'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.