List 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields and is associated with Wix Stores, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or cost. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.
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 efficiently conveys purpose and returned fields without any filler. It is front-loaded and 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of a complete input schema, the description covers the returned fields adequately. However, it omits details like ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. Still, it is largely complete for a listing 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%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond affirming the search term matches product name, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 action ('List products') and the resource ('in this site's store'), and it specifies what is returned (name, price, stock status, product type). It is distinct from sibling tools, all of which target different 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 listing store products but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain (booking, store checkout, events, restaurant, etc.) with clear descriptions. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like create_booking, create_checkout, and reserve_event_tickets are differentiated by their specific contexts.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_availability, list_blog_posts, reserve_event_tickets). There is no mixing of conventions like camelCase, and verbs are predictable (get, list, create, search, submit, etc.).
With 28 tools, the count is slightly on the high side but justified by the broad scope covering a neighborhood directory with multiple features (places, events, movies, menus, bookings, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, though a few could be consolidated.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose, covering search, details, bookings, events, movies, menus, blogs, FAQs, forms, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to cancel bookings or update reviews), but core workflows are well-covered.