Skip to main content
Glama

mosques_near

[$0.005 USDC per call via x402] Mosques and Muslim prayer spaces near a lat/lng (radius up to 30 km), sorted by distance, with qibla bearing. OpenStreetMap data (ODbL).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lng": "<lng>"
    },
    "name": "mosques_near"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude
lngYesLongitude
limitNo1-50 (default 20)
radius_kmNo0.2-30 (default 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: a paid x402 endpoint at $0.005 USDC per call, distance-sorted results, a hard 30 km radius ceiling, and ODbL-licensed OpenStreetMap provenance. It does not cover failure behavior for out-of-range inputs or what a result record contains, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence plus a provenance clause, no filler. The pricing tag leads, which is slightly at odds with front-loading the purpose, but it is a single bracketed token and arguably the most decision-relevant fact for an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent the ordering, that qibla bearing comes back, and that the call costs money — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is result field composition (address, name, denomination), which would matter for downstream use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so lat/lng/limit/radius_km are already documented; the description only reinforces the radius ceiling and adds the meaning that results are distance-sorted, implying limit means 'nearest N'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb+resource: mosques and Muslim prayer spaces near a lat/lng, with sort order and an extra returned field (qibla bearing). The 'near a lat/lng' phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling mosques_city, but it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the coordinate-based framing; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to mosques_city/halal_near/qibla as alternatives. An agent can infer the split, but must do the work itself.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources