Find partner venues by city and activity type, including capacity and per-person price, to match offline social activities.
查询合作场地目录（按城市和活动类型匹配，含容量与人均价）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| activity_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include capacity and per-person price, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, result limits, or ordering — thin for a directory query with zero structured behavioral hints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and matching criteria come first. It is compact and earns its space, though it packs caveats into a parenthetical rather than prose.
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, the description usefully previews returned fields (capacity, per-person price). However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, gaps around result count, permissions, and parameter formats remain.
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 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate. It does name the two matching axes (city, activity type), but adds no format, casing, or accepted-value guidance for either.
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?
States a specific verb (查询) and resource (合作场地目录), plus the matching axes (city, activity type). It is clearly distinct from siblings like query_activities, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
The parenthetical hints at how matching works, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus query_activities or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.