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?
Description discloses the return fields and filtering criteria but does not mention behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, it should explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.
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: first sentence clearly states purpose, second adds details. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with essential 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it lists, what fields are returned, and the criteria for inclusion.
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 single parameter (limit), and the schema already defines its purpose and default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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, defines what that means, and distinguishes from other list tools by specifying the target audience (businesses without fixed location). Examples are provided.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description should explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to other tools for different listing types.
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 (bookings, store, events, restaurants, movies, etc.) with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate their purposes. Overlap is minimal and handled by context, such as create_booking vs create_checkout vs request_reservation.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using prefixes like get_, list_, create_, search_, etc. The naming is predictable and makes it easy to infer the action and resource.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (places, events, movies, blog, forms, etc.). The count reflects the integration of multiple Wix apps, which is appropriate for a comprehensive directory.
The tool set covers most user-facing operations for a directory: search places, get details, book services, events, restaurant menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation for bookings, no update operations), but these are likely out of scope for a public-facing server.
