List curated editorial guides ("best of" lists) published by this site — ranked places with editorial notes. The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max guides to return (default 20, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists ranked places with editorial notes, but does not mention output format, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate.
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 that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and when to use it. It could mention the output format explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'limit' with description, default, and max. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.
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 the tool lists curated editorial guides ('best of' lists) with ranked places and editorial notes. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_blog_posts and list_products by specifying the context of local recommendations.
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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for 'best X in this neighborhood' questions. It implicitly guides the agent to prefer this tool over others for editorial recommendations, though it lacks explicit not-to-use scenarios.
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.