List solo service-provider profiles on this site — businesses without a fixed physical location (e.g. dog walkers, tutors, personal trainers). Returns name, profile URL, category, and any available metadata (age, height, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max profiles to return (default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists returned fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or default sorting. For a list tool, more behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering) would be helpful.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return 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 tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, explaining what the tool returns and what kind of profiles are included. Missing details like pagination or authentication, but adequate for a basic list 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%, and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's definition of the 'limit' parameter. 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 lists solo service-provider profiles, specifying the kind of businesses (no fixed location) and provides examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_places.
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 use for listing solo service providers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not conditions.
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.