Read-only access to published WAX / WEIGHT candle-making calculation guides. list_guides lists or searches public pages; read_guide reads an allowlisted guide. No authentication is required. This endpoint does not remotely calculate recipes, validate safety, choose wicks or predict scent throw. Website: https://waxweigh.com/
Scored across 2 tools
list_guides enumerates all published pages, while read_guide retrieves a specific page by canonical path. The two operations are clearly distinct with no overlapping purpose.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case. list_guides and read_guide are predictable and readable.
Only two tools are provided, which feels thin even for a read-only catalog. While each tool is necessary, the set lacks any search or filtering capability that would add value.
For a public guide-reading surface, list and read cover the full read-only lifecycle. No create, update, or delete operations are expected or needed for published static pages.
List published WAX / WEIGHT candle math pages. No recipe inputs, account or payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the pages are 'published' only (scoping), and no account, payment, or recipe inputs are needed, which is non-obvious access information an agent would otherwise have to discover.
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 tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the access prerequisites as a supporting clause. Nothing is wasted and no redundancy with the annotations or schema.
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?
For a read-only, optionally filtered list tool with no output schema this covers the essentials of what is returned and the access model. The glaring gap is the undocumented 'query' parameter, which leaves the only input unexplained.
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?
There is one optional 'query' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions searching or filtering at all. With coverage this low, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter and it does not, so the agent gets no guidance on what 'query' matches or its syntax.
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 gives a concrete verb (List) and a specific resource (published WAX/WEIGHT candle math pages), so an agent can immediately tell this is a collection-listing operation. It does not explicitly name read_guide as the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
"No recipe inputs, account or payment required" implies this is a no-friction browsing operation, which hints at when it applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_guide (e.g., list first, then read a specific page), leaving the sibling relationship to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read an existing public candle math page by canonical path. Returns sourced page text; does not calculate or validate a candle recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it returns sourced page text and explicitly does not calculate or validate a candle recipe, preventing misuse as a computation 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence handles return value and negative scope with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (sourced page text) and what is not done. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undefined canonical path format.
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?
Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. 'Canonical path' hints that the argument is a stable identifier rather than free text, yet it doesn't define the path format or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (read an existing public candle math page) and adds the retrieval scope by canonical path. It implicitly separates itself from list_guides by being a read-by-key operation, but never names that sibling, so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
It says the page must already exist and be public, which is implied usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_guides, no note on how a canonical path is obtained, and no preconditions beyond the schema's required field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_guidesread_guide
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.