Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

opentable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

opentable_list_favorites

Read-only

Lists your saved OpenTable restaurants, showing cuisine, neighborhood, price band, rating, and direct URL for each entry.

Instructions

List the user's saved restaurants from OpenTable (Saved Restaurants list). Returns each entry's id, name, cuisine, neighborhood, price band, rating, and OpenTable URL.

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.19.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.14.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context that the source is the user's Saved Restaurants list and enumerates the returned fields, but it does not disclose pagination, limits, or other behavioral details. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

One sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with verb and resource, then a compact list of returned fields. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope and return fields well. It lacks details like pagination, response ordering, or explicit auth requirements, but those are secondary for selecting and invoking a favorite-list tool.

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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter ('view') with a full description and enum, so the prose description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The schema's coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't make the one parameter any clearer, but it doesn't need to.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the user's saved restaurants from OpenTable'), and enumerates the returned fields. The phrase 'Saved Restaurants list' clearly targets favorites, but it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like opentable_list_reservations or opentable_search_restaurants, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance about when to use this tool versus add_favorite/remove_favorite or search_restaurants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or non-goals are stated, so the agent must rely on the tool's name and inference to know when it fits.

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