Get the most recently added AI tool listings, sorted by creation date. Use this to see what's new. For finding specific tools, use search_listings. For browsing by category, use get_category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of listings to return |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses sorting by creation date and that it shows most recently added, but does not explicitly state it's read-only or whether auth is needed. Adequate but not rich.
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 wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second indicates use case, third gives clear alternatives. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (listings, sorted by creation date) and the limit parameter. Could mention listing fields but not essential.
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% for the single parameter 'limit' with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves recently added AI tool listings sorted by creation date. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning search_listings and get_category as alternatives.
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 says when to use this tool vs alternatives: for finding specific tools use search_listings, for browsing by category use get_category. Lacks explicit when-not-use but provides clear context.
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.
