Lodgify MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear, bullet-like list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., data format, error cases) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'property_id: The property ID', 'start_date: Start date for calendar (YYYY-MM-DD)'), including format hints for dates. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail default behaviors for optional parameters like room_type_id.

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: 'Get calendar/availability information for a property.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('calendar/availability information for a property'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_occupancy_summary' or 'get_bookings', which might also involve calendar-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_occupancy_summary' or 'get_bookings', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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