Lodgify MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get a list' implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, error conditions, or response format. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args section is well-structured with one line per parameter. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration is present. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. While it documents parameters, it lacks information about the return format, error handling, authentication, and when to use versus siblings. For a list operation tool with filtering capabilities, more contextual information would be expected.

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 parameter documentation in an Args section, explaining limit, offset, and status with examples. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by documenting all parameters. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining defaults and providing status examples, but doesn't elaborate on constraints or advanced usage.

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 a list of properties with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('properties'), and scope ('list with filtering'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_property_by_id. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like get_bookings, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios for using status filtering or when to choose this over get_property_by_id for single properties. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are included.

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