list_top_dsosList public DSO directory profiles ranked by public size, locations, or growth signals inferred from public profile text. Results are directional, not a private operating benchmark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly notes that results are directional and inferred from public profile text, alerting users to the non-authoritative nature of the data. This adds significant context beyond the basic function, though it stops short of describing return format or pagination.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and ranking criteria, followed by a valuable caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, ranking dimensions, and data reliability. It does not specify the exact response structure, but for a listing tool this is a minor gap, as the agent can infer the output from the name and sibling tools.
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?
The description explains the 'by' parameter with the ranking criteria and clarifies 'growth signals' as inferred, adding meaning beyond the schema's enum. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or default behavior, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 tool lists public DSO directory profiles with ranking by size, locations, or growth signals. This is a specific verb-resource-scope combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dsos or get_dso_profile, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_dsos or compare_dsos. The caveat 'Results are directional, not a private operating benchmark' provides interpretation context but not usage direction. The intended use is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource type: search, get, compare, list, FAQ, and blog search are clearly separated, and entity types (DSO vs practice vs blog vs FAQ) are explicit. No two tools have overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.
Seven of eight tools follow the verb_noun pattern (compare_dsos, get_dso_profile, search_practices, etc.), while root_data_faq deviates as a noun phrase with no leading verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public directory server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, comparison, ranking, and informational queries without redundancy or bloat.
For a read-only public directory, the surface is complete: both DSOs and practices have search and get operations, plus compare and list ranking for DSOs, and FAQ and blog search fill informational gaps. No critical operations are missing; optional search parameters ensure broad coverage.