Search 47,000+ local business profiles by name, category, or location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return (1-20) | |
| query | No | Free-text search across business name and description | |
| state | No | Two-letter state code or full state name | |
| category | No | Category keyword (e.g. "plumbing", "hr consulting") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only mentions the number of profiles ('47,000+'), omitting details about result limits, parameter combinations, or search behavior. It also overstates by saying 'by name, category, or location' without mentioning that 'query' searches name and description, which is a notable 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 achieves maximum conciseness with a single sentence, front-loading the action and key search dimensions. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Despite having five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, result behavior, or parameter combinations. It also fails to position this tool relative to its siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the tool description adds little semantic value beyond grouping parameters into 'name, category, or location.' It does not explain parameter interactions or defaults, but the schema already handles individual parameter meanings. Baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('local business profiles'), also mentioning search dimensions ('by name, category, or location'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_by_city or search_providers, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_city or search_providers. The usage is implied by the description of the search function, but without exclusions or alternative tool references, the agent lacks clear decision support.
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.
