Fetches Istanbul University student cafeteria menus for a specific day, date range, and meal type, helping you check what is served at the SKS dining hall.
İÜ SKS öğrenci yemekhanesi menüsü (sks.istanbul.edu.tr).
Args: gun: "bugun", "yarin" ya da YYYY-MM-DD. gun_sayisi: Başlangıç gününden itibaren kaç gün (1-7). ogun: kahvalti, ogle, aksam, vegan ya da hepsi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gun | No | bugun | |
| ogun | No | hepsi | |
| gun_sayisi | No |
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses only the source site. It says nothing about whether data is scraped live or cached, latency, rate limits, or what is returned when no menu is published — gaps that matter for a web-sourced 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?
The purpose statement is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter notes are a compact list. Slight redundancy between the 'Args' block and the schema titles, but each line adds a format detail, so it mostly earns its place.
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?
For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should also say what a menu entry contains (dishes, calories, prices) and which timezone defines 'bugun'. It defines inputs adequately but leaves the output and edge-case behavior unstated.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'gun' accepts 'bugun', 'yarin' or YYYY-MM-DD; 'gun_sayisi' is the count of days (1-7) from the start day; 'ogun' lists the meal categories. The accepted string literals for 'gun' are genuinely new information the schema lacks; only the default values are left to the schema.
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 first line names a specific resource — the İÜ SKS student cafeteria menu — and cites the source domain (sks.istanbul.edu.tr), so the agent knows exactly what data it returns. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (academic calendar, announcements, course info), though the retrieval verb is only implied by 'menüsü'.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is implied by the 'Args' list. In fairness there is no sibling offering campus food data, so no alternative needs to be named, but nothing states prerequisites or what happens on holidays when no menu exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.