list_metrosThe metropolitan areas with published rankings, and which service categories each one covers. Call this first to learn the slugs the other tools expect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metros | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantive context: it returns metros with published rankings, the categories they cover, and the slugs used by other tools. This explains the functional role and return content, which is beyond what the safety hints provide.
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: the first states the tool's output, the second provides usage guidance. No excess verbiage, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and how to use it in the context of sibling tools. The mention of slugs and categories provides the necessary context for an agent to chain this with other tools.
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 provides complete coverage vacuously. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any ambiguity.
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 that the tool lists metropolitan areas with published rankings and the service categories they cover, and it mentions the slugs that other tools expect. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories or get_rankings by focusing on metropolitan areas as the resource.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to learn the slugs the other tools expect,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and positioning the tool as a prerequisite for other operations. This goes beyond implied usage and names the exact role it plays.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: comparing, profiling, explaining methodology, listing rankings, showing score breakdowns, listing categories and metros, and searching. There is minimal overlap; even get_business_profile vs get_score_breakdown differ in scope (full profile vs specific score).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern using verbs like get, list, search, and compare. The objects are specific and match the action, making the naming predictable and readable.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a rankings-focused server. Each tool earns its place, covering navigation, retrieval, comparison, and methodology without unnecessary redundancy.
The server provides a complete read-only surface for the rankings domain: category and metro discovery, ranked lists, individual score breakdowns, comprehensive company profiles, comparison, search, and methodology. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.