List 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields and that only published posts are returned, which is useful. It implicitly signals a read-only operation through the verb 'list' and specifies recency, but does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss sorting/limits beyond the 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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, adds a parenthetical for clarity, and enumerates return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or vague 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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the return fields, qualifies 'recent published posts', and identifies the site type. Given the low complexity, no additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it 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% — both 'limit' and 'category' have descriptive text. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly scoped resource ('recent published blog posts for this site (Wix Blog)'). It lists concrete return fields, making it unmistakable what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target other resources.
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 clearly states the context (blog posts for this site) and what it returns, making the use case obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are all different resource types, so the intended usage is clear without needing explicit contrast.
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 services, restaurant reservations, event tickets, and RSVPs are all clearly separated by domain and described with explicit use cases. Similarly, search_places, search_dishes, and get_restaurant_menus cover different granularities of place/menu lookup. The descriptions include guidance on when to use each tool, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_*, get_*, create_*, search_*). While a few verbs like 'request' and 'rsvp' differ, they accurately reflect the action's semantics and do not break the overall consistency. The naming makes the tool's purpose predictable from its name.
At 28 tools, this is a large set, but it serves a broad multi-domain directory (places, events, movies, store, bookings, content, etc.). Each tool covers a distinct feature or resource, and there are no redundant tools. The count is at the upper boundary but appropriate for the server's comprehensive scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the directory's main domains: search/discover places, view details, menus, reviews, book services, reserve/RSVP events, browse movies/showtimes, list products, access content (blog, guides, FAQs), submit forms, and check loyalty. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose. The inclusion of pairing tools like list_forms→submit_form and get_availability→create_booking shows deliberate workflow completeness.