Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

resy-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

resy_list_favorites

Read-only

Retrieve the user's favorited Resy venues (hit list) to view saved restaurants and manage dining plans.

Instructions

List the user's favorited Resy venues ("hit list").

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 Resy's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Resy fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.13.0
    • 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 Resy's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Resy fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by saying 'List'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, such as the user-scoped nature of the data, but does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or auth requirements. With the annotation covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'hit list' is a useful synonym rather than redundancy, and the core action and target are front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus the detailed parameter schema provide enough context for correct invocation. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but the low complexity and readOnly annotation reduce the need for further elaboration.

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 only parameter 'view' is thoroughly documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither helps nor hurts. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the user's favorited Resy venues'), and adds the helpful 'hit list' alias for clarity. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like resy_list_reservations, resy_add_favorite, and resy_remove_favorite.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving favorites, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as resy_list_reservations or resy_search_venues, leaving the routing entirely to inference.

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