Retrieve official serving hours for every mess on a chosen date. Use it to know when meals are available.
Return official meal serving timings for each mess.
Args: date: Target date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to today. api_key: API key. Falls back to MESS_API_KEY environment variable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful traits — the date defaults to today and the api_key falls back to the MESS_API_KEY envion variable. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it performs a network calls, or what happens on an invalid date or missing key.
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 purpose sentence plus a two-line Args block. The summary is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place — no fillers, no repetition of schema titles, no redundant detail.
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 description need not document return values. Both parameters are documented with format, defaultValue, and fallback behavior. What is missing is error-condition behavior and explicit sibling routing, which are minor for a simple getter with two optional params.
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%, but the description fully compensates: 'date' gains format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior, while 'api_key' gains purpose and env-var fallback. Every parameter receives meaning that the raw schema does not provide.
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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('official meal serving timings'), and a scope ('for each mess'). None of the 27 sibling tools cover meal timings — they address capacities, registrations, bills, scans, extras, auth keys, and config windows — so this tool is clearly differentiated.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the purpose sentence itself, which implies the tool is for retrieving timings but does not help an agent route between siblings or know when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.