Returns basic information about this neighborhood directory: name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs for key sections, plus the current LOCAL TIME and CURRENT WEATHER at the neighborhood (temperature, condition). Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.
| 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 full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and returns dynamic data (current time and weather). No destructive behavior or side effects are implied. It could mention that no parameters are needed, but the schema already shows that.
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, concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides specific use cases, with no wasted words.
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 there is no output schema, the description effectively explains the return values (list of site info fields plus time and weather). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect. It could be slightly richer on the weather format, but it's adequate.
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 are 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score is 4 since no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to add any parameter info.
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 returns basic information about a neighborhood directory, listing specific data types (name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, current weather). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on site-wide info and contextual time/weather data.
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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the narrow scope makes this less critical.
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 targets a distinct domain (booking, events, places, food, movies, etc.) with clear boundaries. Even similar actions like reservations are clearly differentiated by context (booking appointment vs. table vs. event tickets vs. RSVP).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive neighborhood directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, FAQs, guides, offers, movies, and more. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main user workflows (searching places, booking services, events, food ordering, loyalty, reviews). Minor gaps like lack of user account management or direct payment handling are acceptable for a directory MCP.