Locate Save-On-Foods stores in a city and return store IDs, addresses, hours, phone numbers, and pickup or delivery availability for selecting a SAVEON_STORE_ID.
Save-On-Foods locations in a city with the store id to use as SAVEON_STORE_ID, address, hours, phone and whether pickup or delivery is offered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Edmonton |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the descriptive payload (id, address, hours, phone, pickup/delivery) and implies a read-only lookup, but never states that it is non-mutating, whether auth is required, or how results are scoped/paginated.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists outputs; no filler. It reads slightly as a run-on list, but every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return-field enumeration is partly redundant, and for a simple one-parameter read tool the definition is close to sufficient. Still missing the default-city behavior and any routing guidance to sibling tools.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'city' parameter has a default of 'Edmonton' that the description never mentions. 'in a city' only vaguely gestures at the filter and gives no format or behavior for omitting the argument.
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?
The description names the specific resource (Save-On-Foods store locations) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from search_products, list_categories, price_check, and product_details. It lacks an explicit verb like 'find/list', but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus its siblings, e.g. when a store lookup is needed before price_check. The passing mention of 'SAVEON_STORE_ID' hints at a downstream workflow but never spells it out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.