get_listingFetch full detail of a single Tulimoa listing by its slug: long description, features, use cases, integrations, pricing detail, and links. Use after search_listings when the user wants depth on a specific tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing's URL slug, e.g. 'acme-crm'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing | Yes | Full listing row (detail projection, see DETAIL_SELECT). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool fetches full details and lists returned fields, but lacks information about potential errors, rate limits, or permissions. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
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 with no wasted words; purpose, content, and usage guidance are front-loaded and efficiently communicated.
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 simplicity (one required parameter), presence of an output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what data it returns, and when to use 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'slug'. The description adds value by stating 'by its slug' and providing an example ('e.g. 'acme-crm''), going beyond the schema's bare description.
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 'Fetch full detail of a single Tulimoa listing by its slug' and enumerates the specific data fields returned (long description, features, integrations, etc.), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_listings (list) and submit_listing (create).
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 advises 'Use after search_listings when the user wants depth on a specific tool,' providing clear context and a when-to-use scenario, effectively distinguishing from siblings.
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 distinct purpose: submit, edit, get, search, and list categories. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores, e.g., submit_listing, search_listings.
Five tools cover the core operations of a directory server (CRUD minus delete, plus categorized search) without unnecessary bloat.
Covers create, read, update, and search. Missing delete functionality, but this may be intentional for admin-only or user unpublish actions.