List the malls in the directory with store counts.
Each entry: mall_id, mall_name, city, country, operator, store_count.
Useful first call for discovery — feed mall_id to mall_stores().
Args:
country: Optional country filter: ro, us, gb, hu.
max_results: Maximum number of malls to return (1-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the output fields and parameter constraints (country values, max_results range), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose pagination/ordering behavior. The 'list' verb implies non-destructive, yet it could be more explicit about the safety profile and any server-side limits.
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 compact: a purpose sentence, a usage hint, and a concise args list. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose and follow-up) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the output format, the parameter meanings, and a usage pattern. It omits only minor details like sort order or pagination, which are not critical for a discovery call and are unlikely to impede correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: country is specified with allowed values ('ro, us, gb, hu') and max_results is given a range ('1-100'). This is exactly the kind of compensation needed when schemas are bare, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.
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 ('List') and a precise resource ('the malls in the directory') with a clear output format (store counts and specific fields). It distinguishes itself from sibling mall_stores by focusing on listing malls rather than their stores, so an agent can tell them apart.
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?
It explicitly calls out the tool as a 'useful first call for discovery' and instructs to 'feed mall_id to mall_stores()', giving a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative search tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most discovery scenarios.
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 has a distinct retrieval mode: mall discovery, stores within a mall, free-text search, and structured filters by category, city, or operator. search_stores overlaps conceptually with the structured filters, but the descriptions make the boundary reasonably clear.
list_malls and search_stores use a verb_noun pattern, mall_stores is noun_noun, and the three filter tools use stores_by_<field>. The conventions are readable and predictable within subgroups, but not uniform across the whole set.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory: one mall-level tool, one mall-scoped store tool, one free-text search, and three structured filters. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The set covers mall discovery and multiple store retrieval paths, including free-text and structured filters. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to enumerate all stores globally without a query or list valid categories/cities/operators, but agents can work around them using the provided tools.