getColivingsByContinentSearch for coliving spaces in a specific continent. Valid continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Oceania.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| continent | Yes | Continent name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope and valid continents but omits behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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 concise sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose clearly.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the response structure or any limitations. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the list of valid continents (also present in schema as enum) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Search for coliving spaces in a specific continent' and lists the six valid continents, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like getColivingsByCountry or getColivingsByBudget.
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 implies usage for continent-based searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., getColivingsByCountry) or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.
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 clearly distinct purpose: search by different criteria, get details, check availability, list categories. The only potential overlap (checkAvailability vs checkAvailabilityBySlug) is differentiated by input type (ID vs slug), which is a reasonable distinction.
All tools follow a consistent camelCase pattern with lowercased verbs followed by nouns (e.g., checkAvailability, getColivingsByBudget). No mixing of conventions (e.g., snake_case, PascalCase) is present.
With 14 tools, the server covers the core operations for a coliving discovery platform: searching by multiple filters, viewing details, checking availability, and accessing metadata. The count feels well-scoped without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the main user journeys: discovering colivings via various criteria, getting detailed information, checking availability, and reading reviews. Minor gaps include the lack of combined filtering (e.g., country + budget) and no booking tool, but these are likely outside the intended read-only scope.