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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns profiles and their fields, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks behavioral details.
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?
Single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value: purpose, scope, and return fields.
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?
No output schema, but description explicitly states the return fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata). The tool is straightforward, and the description covers the essential information for an agent to understand its output.
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?
Input schema has one optional 'limit' parameter with a description, giving 100% coverage. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already handles it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists solo service-provider profiles, specifies the type (businesses without fixed physical location), and details the returned fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle bookings, events, etc.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for listing provider profiles but does not contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_blog_posts, list_products) or specify prerequisites or context.
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 action and domain, with clear descriptions preventing confusion. Similar tools like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are differentiated by service type and workflow.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_categories), ensuring predictability and ease of use for agents.
With 28 tools, the set is fairly large but appropriate for a comprehensive neighborhood directory covering multiple domains (places, events, booking, store, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of common user needs: search and discovery, detailed info, reservations, purchases, and interactions (forms, FAQs). No obvious gaps for the described purpose of a neighborhood directory.