discava – Business Directory for AI

search_businesses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for local businesses. Returns name, category, city, country, logo_url, available_details (what data exists), and scores. Check available_details to see what is available, then call get_business for full details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	No	Latitude for distance calculation
`lon`	No	Longitude for distance calculation
`city`	No	City name (e.g. "Hamburg", "Wien", "New York")
`lang`	No	Language for category labels: "de", "en", "fr", "nl", "it", "es", "pt", "pl"
`page`	No	Page number for pagination (default 1)
`limit`	No	Results per page (1-50, default 10)
`query`	No	Search query (e.g. "plumber", "Zahnarzt", "Italian restaurant")
`format`	No	Response format: "json" (default) or "html" for interactive cards
`country`	Yes	ISO country code (required, e.g. "DE", "AT", "US")
`category`	No	Category slug (e.g. "plumber", "restaurant", "dentist")
`min_confidence`	No	Minimum confidence score 0-100 to filter low-quality entries

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds useful context about the return structure, specifically the 'available_details' field indicating data existence, and the need to call another tool for full details. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's data completeness behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for an AI agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context about what results look like (return fields) and the follow-up action (get_business). It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers page and limit parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides descriptive text for all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The description's mention of return fields indirectly relates to query parameters, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning burden, yielding a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search for local businesses' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_business by instructing users to call get_business for full details, establishing clear purpose differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage workflow: search, check available_details, then call get_business for full details. This implies when to use this tool versus the get_business alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other siblings like list_categories, leaving some implicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All discava – Business Directory for AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_business retrieves full details, get_rankings returns popularity rankings, search_businesses performs filtered searches, suggest provides autocomplete, list_categories and list_countries enumerate valid options, health_check checks API status, and send_feedback reports issues. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_business, get_rankings, list_categories, list_countries, search_businesses, send_feedback). However, 'health_check' is a noun phrase and 'suggest' is a lone verb without an object, introducing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools covering search, details, rankings, autocomplete, enumeration, health check, and feedback, the count is well-matched to the directory's scope. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a complete workflow for discovering and retrieving business information: list available categories/countries, autocomplete input, search, get rankings, fetch full details, and report issues. No critical gaps are apparent for a read-only directory.

Resources

Need Help?