Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

opentable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

opentable_get_restaurant

Read-only

Pull complete OpenTable restaurant information—cuisine, price, hours, address, rating, and booking availability—using an ID, slug, or search URL to evaluate venues before reserving.

Instructions

Get full details for a single OpenTable restaurant: cuisine, price band, description, address, hours, phone, payment options, features, rating/review count, and availability_token (used internally when booking). Accepts the numeric restaurant_id, a slug, a path, or the full URL from opentable_search_restaurants — passing the search result's "url" verbatim always resolves, including legacy venues served at /{slug} instead of /r/{slug}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns OpenTable's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which OpenTable fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
restaurant_idYesNumeric restaurant_id (as returned by opentable_list_reservations / opentable_list_favorites), slug ("state-of-confusion-charlotte"), path, or full URL from opentable_search_restaurants. Passing the search result's "url" verbatim resolves both /r/{slug} and legacy /{slug} venues; a numeric id resolves via /restaurant/profile/{id}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.19.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; \"full\" returns OpenTable's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which OpenTable fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.18.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / restaurant_id / description
      Previous value: -"Slug (\"state-of-confusion-charlotte\"), path, or full URL from opentable_search_restaurants. Prefer passing the search result's \"url\" verbatim — it resolves both /r/{slug} and legacy /{slug} venues. Numeric ids are not supported (they 404); use the slug/url instead."New value: +"Numeric restaurant_id (as returned by opentable_list_reservations / opentable_list_favorites), slug (\"state-of-confusion-charlotte\"), path, or full URL from opentable_search_restaurants. Passing the search result's \"url\" verbatim resolves both /r/{slug} and legacy /{slug} venues; a numeric id resolves via /restaurant/profile/{id}."
  4. First observedv0.14.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the compact/full view behavior, the fact that compact strips image/avatar URLs, and the reasoning that no field projection is invented to avoid dropping caller-needed fields. It also discloses resolution details for numeric IDs, slugs, paths, and full URLs, including legacy venue handling. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, and the second sentence efficiently explains identifier flexibility and legacy URL resolution. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition, filler, or optional background.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only single-resource retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates all returned categories, explains both view modes, details accepted identifier forms, and notes availability_token's role in booking. An agent has enough information to select the tool and call it correctly without needing to inspect the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description largely restates what the input schema already documents for restaurant_id and view. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions: both explain accepted ID forms and the compact/full distinction. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a single OpenTable restaurant'), then enumerates the exact fields returned: cuisine, price band, description, address, hours, phone, payment options, features, rating/review count, and availability_token. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opentable_search_restaurants, which lists/search results, and opentable_list_reservations, which handles user reservations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve full details for a single known restaurant, often as a follow-on to opentable_search_restaurants. It even instructs that passing the search result's 'url' verbatim always resolves, including legacy /{slug} venues. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for other cases, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools