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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation and specifies return fields, but lacks details like pagination behavior, ordering, or data freshness beyond the limit parameter.
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 core purpose and return value. 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 no output schema, the description covers return fields adequately. It also mentions the platform (Wix Stores). However, could be more complete by noting default limit or that it lists all products by default.
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 no additional parameter-level info beyond what the schema provides (the schema already describes q as matched against product name, and limit as max count).
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 lists products in the site's Wix Stores, and specifies the exact return fields (name, price, stock status, product type). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_blog_posts 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_dishes for food products, or other list tools). No context on prerequisites, scope, or when not to use it.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, even among similar actions like booking, reservation, and ticket purchase—their descriptions clarify the domain and flow. No two tools could reasonably be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
At 28 tools, the surface is larger than ideal for a single server, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (bookings, events, store, etc.). It borders on heavy but is still manageable for an agent.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of browsing and acting on a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, events, booking, reservations, store, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.