Compare funeral homes and cremation providers by what they publish.
Scored across 9 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: single listing/product retrieval, listing search, category/place/product/source listing, and stats. The only near-overlap is between funeral-provider categories and product categories, but the descriptions clearly distinguish them. No tool appears to duplicate another's purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_listing, get_product, get_stats, list_categories, list_places, list_product_categories, list_products, list_sources, and search_listings. The convention is predictable throughout.
Nine tools is well within the appropriate range for a focused read-only directory/comparison server. Each tool covers a meaningful slice of the domain without excessive fragmentation.
The surface covers the core read-only workflows: retrieving individual listings and products, searching listings, listing categories/places/products/sources, and getting stats. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct product search or list-all-listings operation, but agents can work around these using the current tools.
Get one published funeral provider by its slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — only 'published' providers are returned — but says nothing about what happens when the slug is unknown or unpublished (empty result vs. error).
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?
One short sentence with zero filler, and the key qualifier ('published') is included up front rather than buried.
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 single-parameter lookup with rich annotations and a fully described schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including the published-only constraint. The only gap is not-found/error semantics, which is minor for this tool shape.
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 single slug parameter is fully documented with a pattern and length bounds in the schema. The description's 'by its slug' adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get'), cardinality ('one'), resource ('published funeral provider'), and lookup key ('by its slug'). This clearly differentiates it from search_listings and the list_* siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 singular 'get one ... by its slug' implies this is for direct retrieval of a known listing rather than discovery, which is the search_listings use case. However, no alternative is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one affiliate product by its slug, with its page and outbound link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by stating the response includes the product's page and outbound link, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits not-found behavior, which keeps it below 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and the returned content are both stated in one pass.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is what happens when the slug does not resolve, which an agent would want to know.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter carries its own description plus a pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by its slug' restates rather than extends that, matching the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one affiliate product') and scopes it to a single-item lookup, which implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling list_products. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'by its slug' implies the precondition that the caller already has a slug, which is useful context for choosing this over list_products or search_listings. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative appears.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the number of published funeral providers, places and categories, and when the data last changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explains that the tool returns counts (not records) and a last-changed timestamp, which is important since there is no output schema. It does not clarify whether counts are global or broken down per category/place, which is a minor remaining gap.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The key information—what is counted and the freshness timestamp—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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what data comes back and that freshness information is included. A small gap remains in that it does not specify whether the counts are totals or a per-category/per-place breakdown, which could matter for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap.
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 ('Get') and precisely states the resource: the number of published funeral providers, places and categories, plus when the data last changed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or search_listings, which return items rather than aggregate counts.
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 usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs aggregate counts or data freshness rather than lists of entities. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus the list/search siblings, nor does it name any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List categories with their funeral provider counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include provider counts, which is useful context, but it does not disclose ordering, freshness of counts, or any other behavioral nuance.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource and the key added detail. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.
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, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It mentions the returned aggregate ('provider counts'), though it lacks explicit guidance on pagination, ordering, or result shape, which are minor gaps absent an output schema.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. With no parameters to document and full schema coverage, the baseline is a 4; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List categories') and adds that each category includes funeral provider counts. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_places, list_sources, or get_stats.
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 implied use case is clear from the name and description: retrieve category listings. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling list/search tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List countries, regions and cities that have funeral providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are limited to geographies with actual providers, but says nothing about ordering, depth of the country/region/city hierarchy, or result size.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with zero filler and the scope constraint front and center. Nothing to cut.
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?
With no output schema, the description should indicate the shape of the return value — e.g. whether it is a flat list or a nested country→region→city structure, since it names three levels. The tool is simple enough that the gap is not severe, but it is a real omission.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning is missing.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and a precise resource (countries, regions and cities), with a meaningful scope qualifier: only geographies that have funeral providers. That distinguishes it from search_listings, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus list_categories or search_listings, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance. The 'that have funeral providers' clause hints at a discovery/enumeration use case, but only implicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the product categories with their product counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution beyond that is that results include product counts — useful, but no ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, and the key payload detail (counts) is front-loaded where the agent will read it.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description plus schema is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: with no output schema, the exact return shape (field names, ordering) is only alluded to.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the product categories') plus a distinguishing payload detail (product counts). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'list_categories', leaving an agent to guess which category lister to call.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only implied cue is that this variant returns counts, which the agent must infer rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the affiliate products, with the price each had on the day it was checked. Filter by product category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | A product category slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious data semantic — the price is a point-in-time snapshot from the day the product was checked, not a current price — but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the most decision-relevant detail (price snapshot semantics) front-loaded ahead of the filter note.
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 one-optional-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient and even hints at the returned fields (product + price). The one gap is the absence of any output schema combined with no note on pagination or result limits.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter carries its own type, slug pattern, and length bounds. The description only restates that the parameter filters by category, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the affiliate products") plus the returned payload (price as of the check date) and the filter dimension. It implicitly separates from get_product (single record) and list_categories, but never names a sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"Filter by product category" plus the optional parameter implies narrowing usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_product, list_product_categories, or list_categories instead. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List where the funeral provider data comes from, with the license and refresh of each source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that each source carries license and refresh information, which is mild value beyond the annotations, but nothing about ordering, size, or return shape. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource first and the returned attributes second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient — it even hints at the returned fields. A small gap remains: it does not state whether the list is exhaustive or how many sources typically exist, but the tool is simple enough that this is minor.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics gap exists.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('List where the funeral provider data comes from') and names the payload fields (license, refresh). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_listing, get_stats, list_categories, list_places, search_listings) by subject matter, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for data provenance/licensing questions, but the description never says when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., vs. get_stats) or notes that it is the only source of license/refresh metadata. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search published funeral providers by text, place and category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search text, with at least one letter or digit. Matches name, categories, attributes, description and place. Typos fall back to close matches. | |
| city | No | City slug, from /places. | |
| sort | No | `relevance` needs `q` and is the default with it. `name` is the default without `q`. `recent` is newest first. | |
| limit | No | Items per page. | |
| cursor | No | `page.nextCursor` from the previous response. Opaque. Send the same filters and `limit`. | |
| region | No | Region slug, from /places. | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, any case. A country the directory does not cover, as listed in /places, gives 400. | |
| category | No | Category slug, from /categories. A parent slug also matches its children. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are limited to 'published' providers, but it does not describe pagination behavior or output structure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to scope and purpose.
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?
The rich schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, for an eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves the agent without guidance on result shape, pagination, or how it relates to sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description groups search dimensions into 'text, place and category', which maps loosely to q, location parameters, and category, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Search') and resource ('published funeral providers'), and scopes it to text, place, and category. It is clear enough to distinguish a search operation from detail tools like get_listing, but it does not explicitly name the sibling enumeration tools such as list_categories or 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 that this tool is for searching providers by text, place, and category, which gives some context for use. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_listing, list_places, list_categories, or how to handle cases with no query or only a place filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_productlist_product_categorieslist_productsget_listingget_statslist_categorieslist_placeslist_sourcessearch_listingsFind pet crematories near you and compare what they publish.
Read-only lookup of public memorials, funeral notices and partner funeral homes.
Search US hospital prices, compare costs, and find insurance-negotiated rates.
Find U.S. senior living communities, public prices, reviews and licensing records.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
