service_addonsLists add-ons that can be sold with salon services, with pagination and optional cache skipping, so you can review upsell options in Booksy Biz.
Add-ons that can be sold with services.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that results are paginated, that a cache can be bypassed via 'fresh', or what the collection contains. No contradiction with annotations, but no added behavioral value either.
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 a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the one line omits the operation type entirely and would need to be expanded, not trimmed.
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?
With no output schema and three pagination parameters, the description should at minimum establish that this is a paginated read of a catalog and what distinguishes it from the other service-related tools. Neither is present, leaving an agent to infer the operation from annotations alone.
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%, so page, per_page, and fresh are fully documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as what 'fresh' caching implies in practice.
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 text is a noun phrase with no verb, so it does not say whether the tool lists, retrieves, or creates add-ons. 'Add-ons that can be sold with services' largely restates the name 'service_addons' and the title 'Service add-ons', adding only the mild gloss 'sold with services'. It gives no differentiation from the many catalog-ish siblings such as service_menu, service_details, or product_catalog.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent cannot infer from the description whether this is the right call versus service_menu or service_details when it needs add-on data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.