Lodgify MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise in places. The front-loaded purpose statement helps the agent quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and information about what the tool returns. For a creation tool with many parameters, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. For all 13 parameters, it adds meaningful explanations (e.g., 'Arrival date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Guest's full name', 'Currency code (default: "USD")') that clarify purpose and format. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates and provides essential context the schema lacks.

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 ('Create') and resource ('booking'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_booking_status' or explain how it relates to read operations like 'get_bookings', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_booking_status' or how it relates to read operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.