list_curatedDim Hour's editorial themed lists for a city (e.g. 'Unmarked Doors' speakeasies). Without list_id: returns all list titles. With list_id: returns that list's venues with editorial notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name or key | |
| list_id | No | A list id from the no-arg call |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| city | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| lists | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| venues | No | ||
| subtitle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the dual-mode behavior: without list_id it returns titles, with list_id it returns venues and editorial notes. This makes the tool's actual behavior fully transparent to the agent.
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 compact sentences convey the theme, the example, and the two call modes without any filler. The most important scoping information ('editorial themed lists for a city') is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, two parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers both invocation modes and the nature of the returned data, leaving no essential gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how list_id changes the output semantics and confirming that city scopes the editorial lists. This extra context helps the agent understand the parameters' roles beyond their schema descriptions.
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 resource ('Dim Hour's editorial themed lists for a city') and the specific behaviors for both call modes ('Without list_id: returns all list titles. With list_id: returns that list's venues with editorial notes.'). This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes the tool from generic venue-list siblings like list_new_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?
The description gives clear usage context: the tool is for editorial lists, and it explicitly explains how the optional list_id changes the result. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the conditional behavior provides enough guidance for the common cases.
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.
fetch and get_venue both retrieve essentially the same full venue record, differing only by an extra long-form story field. Similarly, search and search_venues both search the same catalog and return ranked venue results, making it unclear which one an agent should call and creating real misselection risk.
The list_* tools are consistent and readable, and most tools use snake_case verb_noun naming. However, fetch and search are bare verbs, and fetch vs get_venue introduces two different verbs for the same operation, so the overall pattern is mixed but still understandable.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a venue guide server, but the count is slightly padded because fetch duplicates get_venue and search duplicates search_venues. The effective surface is closer to five distinct tools, so the count is slightly over what is needed.
The read-only domain is well covered: city discovery, search, curated editorial lists, new venue updates, and full venue details are all present, and search naturally leads into detail retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated non-search way to browse all venues in a city, but the core workflows have no dead ends.