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?
The description discloses the return fields (name, profile URL, category, metadata) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on pagination, default limit behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides moderate but incomplete 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?
The description is extremely concise, containing only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return information. No unnecessary words or repetition; information is 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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its scope, and its outputs. Minor omissions like pagination details or default limit are acceptable for a simple list tool, so it is nearly 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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no further meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a 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 clearly specifies the tool as listing solo service-provider profiles without a fixed physical location, with examples (dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers) and a list of returned fields. This uniquely identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_events 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_booking_services or list_categories. The description implies it's for locationless providers but does not explicitly state when it is appropriate or not appropriate.
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 resource or action (booking, checkout, availability, events, reviews, etc.). Even similar-looking tools like create_booking, request_reservation, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and target systems.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_booking_services). No mixing of conventions or unclear verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a wide domain (places, events, movies, booking, forms, loyalty, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justifiable, though minor trimming could be considered.
The tool set covers most workflows for a neighborhood directory: search, details, booking, events, reviews, etc. Some CRUD operations are missing (no update/delete for bookings), but these are consumer-facing actions where that is acceptable. The domain is well-covered.
