Retrieve all bookable rooms with capacity and amenities, and filter by resource type such as Conference Room, Lab Equipment, or Wellness Room.
List all bookable rooms with capacity and amenities. Can filter by type (Conference Room, Lab Equipment, Wellness Room).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by resource type, e.g. 'Conference Room', 'Lab Equipment', 'Wellness Room' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it establishes that this is a read operation and discloses the returned fields (capacity, amenities), which is genuine behavioral context. It omits any mention of pagination, result limits, or whether unavailable rooms are excluded, which matters for a listing tool with no output schema.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler or repetition. Slightly tight given that it spends words repeating schema-documented type examples rather than adding new 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?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool this is close to adequate: the return contents are summarized and the filter is covered by the schema. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about result shape or pagination to be fully self-sufficient.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description's parenthetical type examples simply mirror the enum-less string parameter already documented in the schema. It adds no matching rules, case-sensitivity, or default behavior beyond what the schema states.
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 sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List all bookable rooms') and states the payload fields returned (capacity, amenities), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It implies the full-inventory scope that separates it from search_available_rooms, but never names or contrasts that sibling 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 word 'all' hints this is the browse-everything tool versus an availability-based search, and 'Can filter by type' suggests the optional narrowing path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no sibling named, so the routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.