Itaim Bibi — neighborhood directory: local places, events, menus, offers, and services.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 27 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: appointments, products, events, places, menus, reviews, forms, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar booking tools (create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event) are clearly differentiated by description and use case.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit, request, reserve, rsvp) and nouns clearly indicate the resource.
28 tools cover a broad domain (neighborhood directory with Wix integrations). While each tool has a clear purpose, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range slightly, making the surface feel somewhat heavy but still manageable.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for the domain: discovery (search places, list events, list guides), details (get place, get reviews), booking (appointments, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP), checkout, forms, FAQs, loyalty, pricing plans, and more. No obvious dead ends for common user journeys.
create_bookingAInspectBook an appointment slot at a venue (Wix Bookings). NOTHING IS BOOKED UNTIL THE CUSTOMER PAYS: this returns a checkout URL, and the booking stays off the venue's calendar until a human opens that URL and completes payment on the venue's own site. Tell the user they must open the link. Call get_availability immediately before this — the slot is re-validated server-side and a taken slot is rejected. The contact email is NOT verified at this step; the checkout is what confirms it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | Yes | Who the booking is for. All three are required by the venue to confirm or reschedule. | |
| endDate | Yes | Slot end as an ISO instant, exactly as returned by get_availability. | |
| serviceId | Yes | Service ID from list_booking_services (called with the same place_slug). | |
| startDate | Yes | Slot start as an ISO instant, exactly as returned by get_availability. | |
| place_slug | Yes | Venue place slug from search_places. | |
| resourceId | No | Optional staff/resource ID from the slot, when the user picked a specific professional. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It transparently reveals that nothing is booked until payment, it returns a checkout URL, and the contact email is not verified. No contradictions.
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 a single, concise paragraph that front-loads the purpose and follows with critical warnings. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (checkout URL) and the required pre-step (get_availability). It covers the complete workflow adequately.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds contextual value about the overall flow but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.
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 books an appointment slot at a venue (Wix Bookings), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_availability and create_checkout.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call get_availability immediately before and explains that the slot is re-validated server-side. It also tells the user to inform the customer that payment must be completed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_checkoutAInspectCreate a direct checkout URL for one or more store products (Wix Stores). The user clicks the URL to complete payment on the site — no login required on the AI agent side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Products to add to cart. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the agent does not need to log in and that the user completes payment on the site, but does not mention whether the URL expires, any side effects, or the exact return value.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and immediately clarify the user experience. No redundant or extra 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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a URL string). While the purpose is clear, an agent would benefit from knowing the output format for handling the response.
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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the input schema. The phrase 'one or more store products' aligns with the schema but does not provide additional detail about the parameters.
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 creates a direct checkout URL for one or more store products, specifying the context (Wix Stores) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_booking or list_products.
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 implies the tool is for generating a checkout link that users click to pay, and notes no login is required on the agent side, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_availabilityAInspectGet available time slots for a bookable service on a given date (Wix Bookings). Pass the serviceId from list_booking_services and a date in YYYY-MM-DD. Pass the same place_slug you used there — slot times are returned in the VENUE's timezone, which is not necessarily the directory's.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. "2026-06-25"). | |
| serviceId | Yes | Service ID from list_booking_services. | |
| place_slug | No | Venue place slug — use the same one passed to list_booking_services. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: slot times are returned in the VENUE's timezone, not necessarily the directory's. It implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention return format, error cases, or authentication needs.
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 three sentences with no wasted verbiage. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides instructions, and the third gives a critical behavioral note. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys all necessary 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter usage but does not describe the format of the returned time slots. While the tool's function is clear, an agent might need to know whether slots are returned as strings or objects. The completeness is adequate but not full.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining why the same place_slug must be used and adds the timezone context that affects parameter interpretation. The schema already includes parameter descriptions, but the tool description enhances understanding.
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 retrieves available time slots for a bookable service on a given date (Wix Bookings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_booking (which creates) and list_booking_services (which lists services) by specifying that the serviceId comes from list_booking_services.
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 gives explicit instructions on when to use the tool: to get available time slots for a specific date. It provides step-by-step guidance on parameters (serviceId from list_booking_services, date format, same place_slug). It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_ticketsAInspectGet ticket types and prices for a specific event (Wix Events). Pass the event slug from list_events. Returns ticket names, prices, sale status, and how many are left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_slug | Yes | Event slug from list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return data (ticket names, prices, sale status, how many left) and implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it misses details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, which would be expected for full transparency.
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 defines purpose, second specifies input and output. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No redundancy or filler.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, what it returns, and how to get the input. It references list_events appropriately.
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 has 100% coverage with the property description identical to the main description's instruction. The main description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 uses the verb 'Get' directly followed by the resource 'ticket types and prices' and specifies the context 'Wix Events'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reserve_event_tickets (reserving) and rsvp_event (attendance).
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 instructs to pass the event slug from list_events, indicating a prerequisite. It implies when to use (when needing ticket info) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_loyalty_infoAInspectGet the loyalty/rewards program details for this site (Wix Loyalty). Returns program name, points currency name, and tier structure with required points per tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns specific data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure modes. For a simple read, it is adequate but could be more explicit.
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 concise: three sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then provides specific return details. Every sentence earns its place, achieving efficiency.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the return structure (program name, points currency name, tier structure). It does not mention edge cases like missing loyalty program, but for a simple read operation on a site with known loyalty, it is largely complete.
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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none, so the baseline score applies.
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's purpose: to get loyalty/rewards program details for the site. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'loyalty/rewards program details', and lists the returned data (program name, points currency name, tier structure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which deal with loyalty.
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 implies usage when loyalty information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternative tools, nor any exclusions or context. Sibling tools include many other 'get' and 'list' operations, but no comparison or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_placeAInspectGet full details for a specific place by its URL slug, including opening hours, a precomputed open_now boolean, amenity attributes (slugs), a delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links (ifood, rappi, uber-eats — each { platform, url }), ratings, address, and neighborhood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the place, e.g. "cafe-example". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return fields and implies a read-only operation. Missing details on error handling (e.g., non-existent slug), but overall adequate for a simple get 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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get full details') and lists returned fields. It is concise but slightly long due to enumerating fields; 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 the simple parameter (one slug) and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about return values to understand the tool's output. No obvious gaps for a straightforward get operation.
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% with a single required slug parameter. The description echoes the schema's parameter description ("URL slug of the place, e.g. \"cafe-example\"") without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 per guidelines.
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 defines the tool as retrieving full details for a specific place by URL slug, listing specific fields returned (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery links, ratings, address, neighborhood). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places and other get_* tools.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_places. It implies usage for when you have a specific slug, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_reviewsAInspectGet published reviews for this site (Wix Reviews). Returns reviewer name, rating, title, and content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max reviews to return (default 10, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that reviews are published and returns specific fields, but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. Purpose and return value are front-loaded.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, description covers purpose and return fields. Missing mention of default limit and sorting, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'limit' is described in schema. Description adds no new insight beyond what schema 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?
Clearly states verb ('Get') and resource ('published reviews'), and explicitly lists returned fields (reviewer name, rating, title, content). No sibling tools for reviews, so no confusion.
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. While it's obvious from context that this is for retrieving reviews, there is no mention of alternatives or constraints like default limit or ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_showtimesAInspectGet showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date. Returns each cinema with session times, format (e.g. "Laser", "3D"), and language (Dublado/Legendado). Requires movies_enabled on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (BRT). | |
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug from list_movies (e.g. "o-corvo-1016084"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement of movies_enabled, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since it is a read operation, the lack of destructive hint is fine, but more detail on caching or data freshness could help.
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, front-loaded with the action and result, and every sentence adds necessary context—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 the simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns (cinema, times, format, language), and the prerequisite (movies_enabled). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying that movie_slug comes from list_movies with an example, and that date defaults to today in BRT format. This adds meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 it retrieves showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in the neighborhood for a given date, specifying the returned fields (cinema, session times, format, language). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on movie showtimes, contrasting with unrelated tools like get_availability or list_events.
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 mentions the prerequisite 'movies_enabled on this site' and implicitly guides the user to use list_movies to obtain the movie_slug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, though no direct sibling overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_site_infoAInspectReturns 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 parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any permissions needed. Only mentions returned data but not behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits.
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 efficient sentences: first lists outputs, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?
No output schema, but description lists major returned fields. Could detail weather format or structure, but sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
No parameters (empty schema), so baseline 4. Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, compensating for lack of output 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?
Description clearly states it returns specific information about the neighborhood directory: name, locale, domain, description, canonical URLs, local time, and current weather. It distinguishes from siblings focused on 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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this for any "what time is it there" or "what's the weather like" context.' Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_blog_postsAInspectList recent published blog posts for this site (Wix Blog). Returns title, excerpt, author, published date, reading time, categories, and the post URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max posts to return (default 10, max 50). | |
| category | No | Filter by category label. Case-insensitive substring match. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses return fields but omits read-only status, ordering (likely by published date descending), and pagination behavior.
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 concise sentences front-load the action and output fields without waste.
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 enumerates returned fields. Missing ordering/sorting details, but adequate for a simple list tool with two optional params.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context about return fields but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'recent published blog posts for this site (Wix Blog)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_products or list_events.
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 alternatives given, but the description is clear enough for basic selection. Lacks guidance on filtering or sorting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_booking_servicesAInspectList a venue's services — what it offers, with price and duration. Pass place_slug (from search_places) to list the services of a specific VENUE — a salon, clinic or studio listed in this directory; that is what you want in almost every case, and it is the only form whose serviceId works with create_booking. Omitting place_slug lists the directory site's own services instead, which most sites do not have. Returns name, description, price, duration in minutes, and bookableViaMcp. Services are listed for EVERY venue, including those with no online booking system — check bookableViaMcp: when it is false, id is null and you cannot book through create_booking, so point the user at bookingUrl or the venue's page instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | No | Venue place slug from search_places. Strongly recommended — without it you get the directory's own services, not a venue's. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it lists all venues even without online booking, explains the bookableViaMcp flag, null ID, and fallback to bookingUrl. This goes beyond a simple listing to provide actionable context.
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 informative but slightly verbose; some sentences could be merged. However, every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is effective but not maximally concise.
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 tool with no output schema, the description explains all relevant return fields (name, description, price, duration, bookableViaMcp) and provides complete guidance on interpreting results, including what to do when services are not bookable.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the two modes (with/without place_slug) and linking to search_places. It clarifies that place_slug is the only form compatible with create_booking, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 lists a venue's services with price and duration, distinguishing between venue-specific services (with place_slug) and directory-wide services (without place_slug). This specific verb-resource combination is distinct among siblings.
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 explains when to use place_slug (for venue services, which works with create_booking) and when to omit it (directory's own services, rarely present). It also provides guidance on handling non-bookable services via bookableViaMcp.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesAInspectReturns the full category taxonomy of this directory site: top-level groups with their subcategories, localized labels, schema.org types, and live place counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is a read operation that returns specified data. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or limits, but for a simple read with no parameters, this is sufficient. No contradictions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and key details. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 no output schema and simple read operation, the description adequately lists what is returned. It covers hierarchy (top-level groups and subcategories) and additional attributes. Could mention if taxonomy is flat or nested, but 'top-level groups with their subcategories' implies nesting.
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 zero parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing the return content.
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 it returns the full category taxonomy, specifying exactly what is included (top-level groups, subcategories, labels, schema.org types, place counts). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'full category taxonomy' are specific and distinguish it from other list_* sibling tools which target specific entities.
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 implies usage for fetching taxonomy, and the sibling context makes clear when to use this versus other list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it scores slightly below 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_eventsAInspectList upcoming events in this neighborhood with date, venue, price, and URL. Events within the next 7 days include a weatherForecast (condition + min/max temperature) for the event day — use it to tell users e.g. "the event is at X and it will be raining". Pass filter to narrow by time or price; filter: "agora" answers "what can I go to right now" and is resolved live on every call, which no cached page can do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events to return (default 20, max 50). | |
| filter | No | Narrow the list: "agora" = on stage at this exact moment (season runs and day-granular sources are excluded, because their stored window says nothing about whether a session is on right now); "hoje"/"amanha"/"fim-de-semana" = running on those days, including multi-day runs; "gratis" = free to attend, including externally-ticketed events priced at 0. | |
| upcoming_only | No | Only return upcoming or in-progress events (default true). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description reveals live resolution for 'agora' filter and weatherForecast inclusion, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds key detail on filter and weather. No redundant 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?
Given no output schema, description covers key return fields and filter behavior. Adequate for a simple list tool, but could mention pagination or default limits (though present in schema).
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining filter enum values (e.g., 'agora' meaning on stage now) beyond the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.
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 'List upcoming events' with specific fields (date, venue, price, URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_event_tickets or reserve_event_tickets.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on using the filter parameter for specific scenarios (e.g., 'agora' for real-time events) and notes weatherForecast for near events. However, no explicit when-not-to-use alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_faqsAInspectGet all FAQ questions and answers for this site (Wix FAQ). Grouped by category. Use this to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the tool retrieves all FAQ questions and answers grouped by category, which is a straightforward read operation. However, it omits any mention of potential pagination or rate limits, though these are unlikely given zero parameters.
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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, then usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It is complete for the given complexity.
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 tool has no parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'FAQ questions and answers for this site', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or list_products. The mention of grouping by category adds further clarity.
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 states when to use the tool: 'to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools, which would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_formsAInspectList available contact/signup forms on this site (Wix Forms). Returns form name, ID, and field definitions (label, type, required). Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states returns but doesn't cover authentication, idempotency, or error behavior. Adequate for a simple read-only listing.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return details. No extraneous 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?
Complete for a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool. Tells what, returns, and usage context. Agent can use without missing info.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline 4 as per rule: 0 params = baseline 4. No additional explanation needed.
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?
Clear verb 'list' + resource 'forms' (Wix Forms). States what is returned (name, ID, field definitions). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'submit_form' by indicating this is a preliminary step.
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?
Explicitly says to use before 'submit_form' to discover fields. Provides clear context and alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_guidesAInspectList 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?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds that results are 'ranked places with editorial notes,' but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. Adequate for a read-only listing.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, and the second provides usage context. 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what guides are and when to use. Could mention pagination or ordering, but not critical.
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,' which already describes default and max values. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 explicitly states it lists 'curated editorial guides ("best of" lists)' with editorial notes. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'best X in this neighborhood' questions, making the purpose very clear.
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 usage context by stating it's the best source for 'best X' questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, which would improve clarity among similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_moviesAInspectList movies available in this neighborhood (only on sites with movies_enabled). Returns now-showing films (with actual showtimes at local cinemas), coming-soon films, and streaming availability. Includes title, genres, TMDB rating, runtime, and detail URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max movies to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| status | No | Filter by status. "now_showing" = films with upcoming showtimes at local cinemas. "coming_soon" = unreleased or not yet playing locally. "streaming" = available on streaming services in Brazil. "all" = full catalog (default). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It discloses the scope (neighborhood, condition on site), and lists the returned fields (title, genres, TMDB rating, runtime, detail URL). It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.
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 concise sentences front-load the key use condition and list the output fields. No extraneous information. 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?
The description explains what the tool returns, including the fields, and the condition for availability. With no output schema, it sufficiently covers the return values. For a simple list tool, this is complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context about the return data (e.g., 'with actual showtimes at local cinemas') but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List movies' and specifies the resource ('available in this neighborhood') and the three categories (now-showing, coming-soon, streaming). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by domain.
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 mentions the condition 'only on sites with movies_enabled' and explains the status filter options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like get_showtimes for more specific showtime details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_offersAInspectList active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory. Returns discount label, promo code (if any), CTA link, validity window, and which business/place it belongs to. FLASH offers have a countdown deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by offer kind. FLASH = time-limited flash sale with countdown. Omit to return all active offers. | |
| limit | No | Max offers to return (default 20, max 60). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool lists offers and returns specific data, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency or lack of side effects, nor mention rate limits. The FLASH detail adds some behavioral context.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then return fields, then special case. No unnecessary words, and 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?
For a simple listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and a special case (FLASH). It lacks mention of pagination or default limit, but overall provides sufficient context for typical use.
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% with both parameters described. The description does not add new insight beyond what the schema already provides (kind and limit details). The mention of FLASH in the description is redundant with the schema's enum description.
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 specifies the tool lists active promotions and deals, details return fields (discount label, promo code, etc.), and distinguishes FLASH offers. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to differentiate from sibling tools like list_products or list_events.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context 'neighborhood directory' is implied, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_pricing_plansAInspectList membership or subscription plans (Wix Pricing Plans). Pass place_slug (from search_places) to list the plans of a specific VENUE — a gym, studio or clinic listed in this directory (e.g. its monthly/annual membership); that is what you want in almost every case. Omitting place_slug lists the directory site's own plans instead, which most sites do not have. Returns plan name, description, price, billing cycle, perks, and a direct checkout URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | No | Venue place slug from search_places. Strongly recommended — without it you get the directory's own plans, not a venue's. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes what the tool returns (plan details, checkout URL) and the venue vs. directory distinction. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though this is implied by the tool name.
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?
Very concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain usage and return values. No redundant or extraneous 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, and return value structure. No gaps remain.
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% (only one parameter, `place_slug`). The description adds significant value by explaining the parameter's critical context—how it changes the tool's behavior and why it is strongly recommended.
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?
Clearly states 'List membership or subscription plans' with explicit resource (Wix Pricing Plans) and verb. Distinguishes between listing plans for a specific venue vs. the directory's own plans, which differentiates it from sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly instructs to pass `place_slug` from `search_places` for venue plans and notes that omitting it lists directory plans (rarely desired). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_productsAInspectList products in this site's store (Wix Stores). Returns name, price, stock status, and product type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Optional search term matched against product name. | |
| limit | No | Max products to return (default 20, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation and lists return fields, but does not mention pagination behavior (despite the limit parameter), permissions, or ordering. The description is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on sorting, error handling, or pagination. For a simple list tool, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent.
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%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what is already in 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'products in this site's store (Wix Stores)', with specific output fields (name, price, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_blog_posts or list_events by specifying the store context.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies use for listing products, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_profilesAInspectList 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, pagination, or ordering. However, it does explain what the tool returns, which partially compensates. For a read-only list tool, the lack of behavioral detail is a moderate gap.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy or filler, fitting all necessary information efficiently.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool with one optional parameter, but lacks mention of pagination behavior or result ordering. This small gap prevents a perfect score.
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 only parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema (default 50). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context about parameter constraints or interaction is given.
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, specifying it's for businesses without a fixed physical location and giving concrete examples (dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). It also lists the returned fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling list tools.
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 implies usage when you need profiles of solo service providers, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_booking_services or list_categories). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_reservationAInspectRequest a table at a restaurant. THE RESTAURANT IS NOT NOTIFIED YET: the request is held and a confirmation email is sent to the address you provide, and only when that person clicks the link does the restaurant receive it. Tell the user to check their inbox — the link expires in 24 hours. Use a real address belonging to the person you are acting for; the confirmation link is deliberately not returned to you. This is a request, not a confirmed booking: the restaurant confirms out of band.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name the table is under. | |
| Yes | The guest's own email — the confirmation link is sent here. | ||
| phone | No | Optional phone number for the restaurant to reach the guest. | |
| message | No | Optional note (occasion, dietary needs, seating preference). | |
| partySize | Yes | Number of people (1–30). | |
| place_slug | Yes | Restaurant place slug from search_places. | |
| requestedAt | Yes | Desired date and time as an ISO instant. Must be in the future. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the restaurant is not notified initially, a confirmation email with a 24-hour link is sent, and the agent does not receive the confirmation link. This covers all critical behaviors.
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 a single, focused paragraph of six sentences, front-loading the main purpose and delivering essential information without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the request lifecycle, outcome (email sent, not confirmed), and important caveats (link expiration, out-of-band confirmation), making it complete for a 7-parameter tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the email's role in the confirmation flow and that the link is not returned, which aids agent understanding.
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 explicitly states 'Request a table at a restaurant,' uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it is a request, not a confirmed booking.
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 usage instructions: tells the user to check their inbox, use a real email, and warns about the link expiration. It implicitly differentiates from confirmed bookings but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reserve_event_ticketsAInspectHold tickets for an event sold through this site (Wix Events) and return a checkout URL. THE HOLD IS TEMPORARY AND NOTHING IS PAID: the tickets are not the user's until a human opens the URL and completes checkout, and the hold expires on its own if they don't. Max 10 tickets and 10 ticket types per reservation. Only works for events this site sells directly — for events sold elsewhere (Sympla, Ingresse, Sesc), use the event's own ticketUrl instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickets | Yes | Ticket types and quantities to hold. | |
| event_slug | Yes | Event slug from list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the hold is temporary, not paid, expires on its own, and requires human checkout via the URL. It also states limits (max 10 tickets and 10 ticket types). This goes well beyond the input schema.
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 concise and front-loads the main action. It efficiently packs important behavioral notes and limits. However, the list of limits (max tickets and types) could be slightly better structured, but overall it is very good.
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 no output schema, the description mentions returning a checkout URL, which is sufficient. It covers event type restrictions, hold behavior, limits, and prerequisites. For a tool with 2 parameters and no nested objects, this is complete.
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% with descriptions for both parameters (event_slug and tickets). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it repeats that tickets come from get_event_tickets and quantity must be at least 1, which are already in the schema. 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hold tickets for an event sold through this site (Wix Events) and return a checkout URL.' It uses a specific verb ('Hold') and resource ('tickets'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that for events sold elsewhere, users should 'use the event's own ticketUrl instead.'
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 states when to use the tool (for events sold directly through this site) and when not to (for events sold elsewhere, use ticketUrl). It also provides contextual guidance on the temporary nature of holds and expiration. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like create_checkout or get_availability as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rsvp_eventAInspectRSVP to a free event on this site (Wix Events). NOBODY IS ON THE GUEST LIST YET: a confirmation email goes to the address you provide, and the RSVP is only submitted when that person clicks the link (expires in 24 hours). Tell the user to check their inbox. Use a real address belonging to the person you are acting for — the confirmation link is deliberately not returned to you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The guest's own email — the confirmation link is sent here. | ||
| lastName | Yes | Guest last name. | |
| firstName | Yes | Guest first name. | |
| event_slug | Yes | Event slug from list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses that RSVP is not immediate, a confirmation email is sent with a 24-hour expiry, and the link is not returned to the caller. This is complete behavioral disclosure.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with action, each sentence adds essential info (behavior, user guidance, parameter hint). 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?
For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (async confirmation), the description covers the critical behavioral aspects. Could mention that RSVP is only counted after confirmation, but it's implicit. Satisfactory.
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?
All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that 'email' is the guest's own and that 'event_slug' comes from list_events. Slight improvement over schema only.
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?
Clearly states it's for RSVPing to a free event, distinguishing from sibling tools like 'reserve_event_tickets' which implies payment. The verb 'RSVP' and resource 'event' are specific.
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?
Explicitly describes the confirmation email flow, advises using a real address, and instructs user to check inbox. Provides when-to-use context and no alternatives needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dishesAInspectFind which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood. Searches every menu item across all restaurants on the site, grouped by dish — e.g. query "feijoada" returns each restaurant serving it with price, description, dietary labels, and the place URL. Omit the query to list the most-served dishes. Use this for any "where can I eat X" question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max dishes to return (default 20, max 50). | |
| query | No | Dish name or part of it, e.g. "feijoada", "pizza margherita". Omit to list top dishes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses grouping, return fields (price, description, dietary labels, URL), and read-only nature implied. No contradictions.
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, no wasted words, key information front-loaded. Efficient and scannable.
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 explains the grouped result structure with fields. Sufficient for a search tool; could mention pagination or limits but not critical.
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%, but description adds value by explaining that omitting query lists top dishes, which is not fully covered in schema descriptions.
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 'Find which restaurants serve a dish in this neighborhood' and explains the grouped dish search, distinguishing it from siblings like search_places and get_restaurant_menus.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this for any "where can I eat X" question' and explains omitting query to list most-served dishes. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_placesAInspectSearch for places (restaurants, cafes, shops, etc.) in this neighborhood. The q match is accent-insensitive and typo-tolerant ("acai" finds "Açaí", "restaurnt" finds "Restaurante"), ranked by relevance. Compose filters for multi-condition queries: category, neighborhood, open_now (true = open at this exact moment), and attributes (amenity slugs, ALL must match). Each result includes a precomputed open_now boolean, an attributes array (amenity slugs), a delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links (ifood, rappi, 99food, uber-eats — each { platform, url }), rating, and structured hours (Google Maps periods: day 0=Sun–6=Sat, time "HHMM"). Common amenity slugs: wifi, outdoor-seating, wheelchair, dog-friendly, delivery, takeaway, reservations, live-music, vegan, gluten-free (availability varies per place).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text term matched against place name and address — accent-insensitive and typo-tolerant. | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| category | No | Filter by category label (e.g. "Café"). Case-insensitive substring match. | |
| open_now | No | When true, return only places open at the current local time (computed server-side from their opening hours). | |
| attributes | No | Amenity slugs a place must ALL have, e.g. ["wifi","outdoor-seating"]. Common slugs: wifi, outdoor-seating, wheelchair, dog-friendly, delivery, takeaway, reservations, live-music, vegan, gluten-free. | |
| neighborhood | No | Filter by neighborhood name. Case-insensitive substring match. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses matching behavior (accent-insensitive, typo-tolerant), ranking by relevance, filter behavior (ALL must match for attributes), precomputed open_now, and output structure. It covers key behavioral traits.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Efficient use of space.
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 6 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, the description explains all parameters and return data fields (open_now, attributes, delivery, hours, rating). Missing pagination details but still fairly complete.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds extra meaning: q is accent-insensitive and typo-tolerant, open_now computed at current time, attributes require ALL match, and gives common slugs. This adds value 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 searches for places (restaurants, cafes, shops) in a neighborhood, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_dishes and get_place by focusing on general place search.
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 explains when to use the tool (for place search with filters) and provides context on matching behavior and filter composition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_formAInspectSubmit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms). Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys. Returns a submissionId on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs matching the field keys from list_forms. Example: { "field_1": "João", "field_2": "joao@email.com" } | |
| formId | Yes | Form ID from list_forms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description says it submits a form and returns a submissionId. It does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or side effects, which is a gap for a mutation 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 succinct sentences: one for purpose and prerequisite, one for return value. No unnecessary 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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, parameter origin, and return value. Could mention error scenarios, but adequate for a straightforward submission.
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%, but description adds value by explaining fields as key-value pairs from list_forms and providing an example. It clarifies the dependency for formId.
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 'Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms and create_booking, and mentions the prerequisite.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call list_forms first to get formId and field keys, providing clear context for when to use this tool. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are dissimilar enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!