list_my_communitiesList communities managed by the authenticated Nas.com user. Provide query to search by community title, slug, or code. Business and community refer to the same thing and are interchangeable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| pageNo | No | ||
| sortBy | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| sortOrder | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that it lists managed communities and supports search, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response format.
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 are concise and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary information, but could be slightly more structured by separating search and pagination aspects.
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?
No output schema, and description lacks details on pagination, sorting, or return values. For a list tool with optional parameters, these details are important for the agent to use effectively.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It only explains the 'query' parameter, leaving pagination and sorting parameters undocumented. With 5 parameters and only one explained, this is insufficient.
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?
Clearly states it lists communities managed by the authenticated user, and supports searching by title, slug, or code. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'list_my_business' despite stating that business and community are interchangeable, which could cause confusion.
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?
Provides context on when to use (to list communities) and that query can be used for search, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives.
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.
Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.
With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.
The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.