Create a new venue under an organization by providing name, address, city, region, postal code, and optional capacity.
Create a new venue (hotel, convention hall, office) under an organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| country | No | US | |
| capacity | No | ||
| address_1 | Yes | ||
| address_2 | No | ||
| postal_code | Yes | ||
| organization_id | Yes |
| 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 must cover behavioral traits. It states the action (create) but omits prerequisites (e.g., organization must exist), permission requirements, side effects, or behavior on duplicate names. The brief description leaves significant gaps.
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 description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and scope. It is appropriately concise.
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 tool with 9 parameters (6 required), no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain required fields like address, city, region, or postal code, and provides no guidance on how to construct a valid request. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the input side is under-specified.
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 by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'under an organization' (organization_id) but gives no meaning for the other 8 parameters. The description adds almost no semantic value over the schema's bare types.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new venue'), and specifies the scope ('under an organization') with examples of venue types. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_venue, get_venue, and list_organization_venues.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when creating a new venue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools (e.g., update_venue for modifications). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.