Maître d'MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the security-sensitive nature (credential persistence) and privacy implications (chat history exposure risk). However, it omits details about storage persistence scope, encryption, or error conditions that would be valuable for a credential storage tool.

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?

Excellent structure with front-loaded purpose statement, followed by necessary setup instructions, then Args/Returns sections. The CSRF extraction steps are lengthy but essential for usability. No redundant or wasted language—every sentence provides necessary guidance or context.

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?

Comprehensive coverage for a credential management tool: explains purpose, security best practices, parameter semantics, return values, and setup prerequisites. Despite having no annotations and a schema with no descriptions, the description provides everything needed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic meaning for all 5 parameters in the Args section. It explains not just what each parameter is (csrf_token, email, etc.) but also environmental variable alternatives and the purpose of personal data fields (reservations).

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (save/store) and resource (OpenTable DAPI credentials) for the specific purpose of automated booking. The name and description clearly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'store_resy_credentials' by specifying the OpenTable platform.

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?

Provides excellent step-by-step instructions for obtaining the CSRF token and strongly recommends environment variables to avoid exposing secrets in chat history. Lacks explicit contrast with 'store_resy_credentials' regarding when to use each platform, though this is implicitly clear from the naming.

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