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 but adds minimal context. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving 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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional parameter explanation is brief and relevant, though it could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but the structure is slightly basic.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses critical context such as what 'detailed information' includes, error scenarios, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 basic meaning for the single parameter ('property_id: The unique ID of the property'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide details like ID format, range, or examples, offering only marginal value beyond what the schema's type ('integer') already indicates.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific property'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_properties' (which likely lists multiple properties) or 'get_booking_by_id' (which focuses on bookings rather than properties), missing full sibling distinction.

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. For example, it doesn't specify when to choose 'get_property_by_id' over 'get_properties' (e.g., for single vs. multiple properties) or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.

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