business_profileRetrieve the public profile and core data for the business open in the current Booksy Biz panel tab, optionally skipping the local cache.
Public profile and core data of the business open in the panel tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile and indicating an open-world read. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not explain caching (despite the 'fresh' parameter), permissions, return format, or what 'open in the panel tab' means behaviorally. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description should still add context but does not.
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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but the phrase 'open in the panel tab' is vague and could be clearer; still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and annotations cover safety and openness. The description identifies the resource but does not explain what 'core data' includes, what the return values look like, or how it differs from related business_* tools. Given the absence of an output schema and many siblings, more specificity 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional parameter 'fresh' is documented in the schema as 'Skip the local cache'. The description does not mention this parameter or how it affects behavior, but the high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.
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 names the resource ('business') and suggests it returns 'Public profile and core data', so the general purpose is inferable. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not distinguish this tool from numerous sibling business_* tools such as business_features, business_visibility, or business_amenities. The phrase 'open in the panel tab' is ambiguous and adds little clarity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling business_* tools. No alternatives are named and no conditions or exclusions are provided. An agent must guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.