Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

opentable-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

opentable_search_restaurants

Read-only

Find restaurants on OpenTable by cuisine, area, or name, and get details like rating, price, and neighborhood. Use it to discover venues before checking availability separately.

Instructions

Search OpenTable for restaurants. Returns matching restaurants with cuisine, neighborhood, price band, rating, description, and URL. Does NOT include bookable slot tokens — use opentable_find_slots for a specific venue to check availability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD. Affects search ranking but not returned slots.
termNoFree-text query (cuisine or restaurant name)
timeNoHH:MM (24h). Default 19:00 when date is set.
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.
latitudeNo
locationNoCity / neighborhood / address — appended to the term. Prefer lat/lng when precise.
metro_idNoOpenTable metro id (e.g. 8 = SF Bay Area, 31 = Charlotte).
longitudeNo
party_sizeNoNumber of guests. Default 2.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. First observedv0.14.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The read-only hint is already in annotations, so the description carries little weight on that front. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it lists what the response contains and, more importantly, declares that it does NOT include bookable slot tokens. This influences whether the agent should continue with this tool or switch to the slots tool. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but those are not hinted as critical.

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?

Two sentences: one defines the purpose, one defines the output and the critical limitation. There is no filler, and the sibling disambiguation is also the back-loaded second sentence. This is efficient and front-loaded.

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 search tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the gaps: it lists the returned fields and warns about the absence of the slot tokens. The input schema already handles the parameter details. The additional behavioral note about the partial output is exactly the kind of information the description needs to provide.

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 uses many parameters (7 of 9) with verbose descriptions, which covers most semantics. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameter, so its added value here is minimal. Latitude and longitude are left without a schema description, and the tool description does not compensate for those either, but the high overall coverage keeps this acceptable at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search OpenTable for restaurants'), names the return fields (cuisine, neighborhood, price band, rating, description, URL), and distinguishes the tool from the sibling `opentable_find_slots` by stating it explicitly does not include bookable slot tokens. That is enough for an agent to tell this from its siblings 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives a clear when-not: this tool does NOT include slot tokens, and then names the exact sibling to use instead (`opentable_find_slots`) for availability checks. This is an explicit exclusion and alternative, which meets the top bar.

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