list_guidesCellarion's published guides and blog articles (cellar management, drink windows, storage, buying) — title, slug, excerpt and tags. Call when the user wants a how-to or background reading; follow with read_guide for the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag | |
| limit | No | How many to return (1-20, default 10; larger values are capped, not rejected) | |
| offset | No | Skip this many (default 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, and the description adds context about the returned fields (title, slug, excerpt, tags) and the relationship to read_guide. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it omits any ordering or pagination behavior (which is partially covered by schema params).
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, which addresses the main unknown. It also provides follow-up context (read_guide) and the tool is simple enough that no further detail is required.
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. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents tag, limit, and offset well.
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 what the tool does: lists Cellarion's published guides and articles with metadata fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling read_guide by noting it returns excerpts and pointing to read_guide for full text.
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?
Explicitly says when to use ('when the user wants a how-to or background reading') and names the alternative (read_guide) for full text. This is clear, actionable guidance.
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 addresses a distinct concern: registry search, wine detail, vintage-specific drink windows, similarity recommendations, guide listing, guide reading, and server metadata. No two tools serve the same purpose, and the descriptions clearly indicate when to use each.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_guides, read_guide, search_registry, get_wine, get_source_info, find_similar_wines). 'drink_window_for' is an outlier, using a noun phrase instead of an imperative verb, which introduces a minor inconsistency.
With seven tools, the server is well-scoped and avoids bloat. Each tool provides a distinct capability, and the count is appropriate for a wine registry server covering search, details, drink windows, similar wines, guides, and metadata.
The core registry workflow is well covered: search_registry for identification, get_wine for details, drink_window_for for aging advice, and find_similar_wines for recommendations. However, multiple descriptions reference search_bottles for user-owned bottles, yet that tool is not provided, leaving a notable gap for user-specific queries.