Get all published listings in one specific category, sorted by agenticness score. Use this to browse a category. To see all categories first, use list_categories. To search across ALL categories, use search_listings or semantic_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The category slug (e.g. 'coding-agents', 'general-purpose-agents') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting by agenticness score and that only published listings are returned. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or rate limits, which would improve transparency for a read tool.
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?
Three sentences with no redundant text. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
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 single required parameter, no output schema, and simple task, the description covers browsing a category and sorting. Missing details like pagination or response format, but still largely complete.
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 implies the single 'slug' parameter but does not add new semantics beyond the schema's example values and explanation.
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 states 'Get all published listings in one specific category, sorted by agenticness score.' It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates from siblings like list_categories and search_listings.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to browse a category.' Also provides alternatives: 'To see all categories first, use list_categories. To search across ALL categories, use search_listings or semantic_search.'
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, with descriptions explicitly guiding when to use each. Overlaps between search/recommend tools are resolved by detailed usage instructions (e.g., recommend_tools vs semantic_search vs search_listings).
All tool names use consistent snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_listings, get_category, search_listings). Even semantic_search, while adjective_noun, matches the style seamlessly.
10 tools is ideal for a directory server: covers discovery, search, comparison, and detailed analysis without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear role in the workflow.
Covers core directory operations (browse, search, filter, compare, details). Lacks a 'list all tools' function, but users can retrieve listings per category or via search. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for agents.
