List solo service-provider profiles on this site — businesses without a fixed physical location (e.g. dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). Returns name, profile URL, category, and any available metadata (age, height, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max profiles to return (default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope and return fields (name, URL, category, metadata). It doesn't cover pagination or sorting but is adequate for a list 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 sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, then details. No redundant words, efficient and clear.
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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields and distinguishes from sibling lists. Slightly vague about 'any available metadata' but overall sufficient.
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% for the only parameter (limit), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'solo service-provider profiles' and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'businesses without a fixed physical location' with examples.
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 context but no explicit when-to-use or comparisons to sibling tools. It implies usage for solo service providers without location but lacks guidance on alternatives.
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.