Maître d'MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'merged dietary restrictions' revealing aggregation logic/computation on member data, which is valuable behavioral context. However, lacks disclosure on auth requirements, pagination, or performance characteristics for 'all' groups retrieval.

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?

Two concise sentences. The 'Returns:' label is slightly formal/structured rather than flowing prose, but content is efficient with no wasted words. Business logic (merged restrictions) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Adequate for a simple list operation. Given output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids redundant return value specification while highlighting key business logic (dietary restriction merging) that schema likely doesn't capture.

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?

Zero parameters exist (empty schema), which per guidelines sets a baseline of 4. No parameter documentation needed.

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?

Clear verb (List) + resource (saved groups) with specific scope including members and merged dietary restrictions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_for_group' or 'manage_group' which likely overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'search_for_group' (likely search/filter capability) or 'manage_group' (likely modification capability). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.