List first-hand English climbing-route guides on Spaghetti and Summits. Returns each route's name and the URL of the guide on the blog. Call this when the user asks what climbing routes are on the site, or needs a link to a route page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists guides and returns name plus URL, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but those are less critical for a simple 0-parameter list tool.
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 sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 has no parameters, no siblings, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, its output shape, and when to call it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no interpretation. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than params, which is sufficient for this 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'first-hand English climbing-route guides on Spaghetti and Summits'. It also distinguishes the tool's output by stating it returns each route's name and guide URL.
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 explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks what climbing routes are on the site, or needs a link to a route page.' This provides clear, actionable invocation conditions.
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.
There is only one tool, so no two tools can be confused; list_climbing_routes has a clearly isolated purpose. An agent has no alternate tool to misselect.
The sole tool name uses a clear verb_noun pattern (list_climbing_routes). With one tool there can be no mixed conventions to lower the score.
A single tool is at the low end of viability, and the server's 'Dolomites Adventures' framing suggests a broader domain than route listing. It is not trivial, but one operation feels too few for the apparent scope.
The list tool returns route names and URLs, which avoids a dead end for link-style queries. However, it lacks route detail retrieval, search/filter, and any coverage of other adventure content, leaving notable gaps.