Search 355+ curated Vail Valley, Colorado restaurants, hotels, activities, shops and services.
Scored across 2 tools
list_categories is a pure taxonomy browse while search_listings is a keyword/category query returning listing records; the two purposes are unmistakably distinct with no overlap.
Both names follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_categories, search_listings) and the verbs accurately reflect the read-only nature of the operations.
Two tools is thin for a business directory server; a browse/discovery surface typically warrants at least a detail-fetch or listing-enumeration tool alongside category and search endpoints.
Search plus category listing covers basic discovery, but there is no get_listing-by-id tool, so an agent that finds a listing in search results has no way to re-fetch a single listing's full detail, and there is no way to enumerate all listings in a category without a keyword.
List the VailVacay directory's top-level business categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration via 'List' and hints at hierarchy with 'top-level', but says nothing about ordering, return size, whether categories are static, or whether deeper levels exist and how to reach them.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and its scope.
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 zero-parameter, output-schema-less read tool the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves open what the returned categories look like and how they relate to the sibling search tool, which an agent would need to chain the two calls.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('top-level business categories') scoped to the VailVacay directory, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_listings, which is the only gap.
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 indication of when to call this versus search_listings, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/bootstrap call before searching listings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search VailVacay business listings by keyword and/or category. Returns sanitized public listings (name, description, address, phone, hours, photos, booking links). Only quality listings are returned: publicly active, with a real description (100+ chars), at least one photo, and geo coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Keyword search, e.g. 'steak' or 'ski rental' | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50) | |
| category | No | Category name filter, e.g. 'Restaurants' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that results are 'sanitized public' fields and enumerates the quality gate (publicly active, 100+ char description, at least one photo, geo coordinates). It omits pagination behavior and any auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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: the purpose leads, and the result-shape/quality-filter detail follows. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (name, description, address, phone, hours, photos, booking links) and the quality filter, which is what an agent needs to set expectations. Pagination semantics are left to the schema, a minor gap for a search tool.
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 100%, so q, category, page, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description only restates keyword/category filtering and adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Search VailVacay business listings') plus the two filter axes (keyword, category), which is enough to distinguish it from the category-enumeration sibling. It stops short of naming list_categories as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 phrase 'by keyword and/or category' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when it should be preferred over list_categories or what to do with zero-match results. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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_categoriessearch_listingsSearch curated Boston, MA tours, activities, hotels, restaurants, nightlife and services.
Search curated Bangkok, Thailand tours, activities, hotels, restaurants, nightlife and services.
Daily-verified Colorado kids' camps & after-school programs: real availability, ages, prices.
Search nearly 20,000 verified restaurants and bars across 24 cities plus the New Mexico region, with venue detail and curated lists.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
