loyalty_cardsRetrieve a salon's client loyalty cards from Booksy Biz, with pagination and cache control, to track rewards and customer retention.
Client loyalty cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication that results are paginated, that a cache exists or can be bypassed via 'fresh', or what a returned card contains.
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?
It is short, but length here comes from omission rather than efficiency; the single fragment duplicates the title and carries no information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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?
For a paginated, cache-aware list endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies neither return shape nor pagination behavior nor the resource's meaning. An agent has essentially no basis for calling it correctly beyond the schema field names.
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 all three parameters (page, per_page, fresh) are documented with defaults, bounds and meaning in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Client loyalty cards." only restates the tool name/title and never supplies a verb, so an agent cannot tell whether this lists cards, fetches one, or returns a template. It is indistinguishable from siblings such as customer_cards and loyalty_program without opening the schema.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all. With customer_cards and loyalty_program in the sibling set, the description leaves the agent to guess which endpoint answers a loyalty-card question.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.