search_studiosFind bookable nail artist studios on NailMe near a location or in a city, nearest first. Optionally only studios with a matching service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name, used when no coordinates are known | |
| limit | No | Max studios, default 10, at most 20 | |
| latitude | No | ||
| longitude | No | ||
| radius_km | No | Search radius around the coordinates, default 25 | |
| service_query | No | Words the service name must contain, e.g. "pedicure" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that — results are ordered 'nearest first' and can be narrowed to studios offering a matching service. It does not state pagination or what an empty-geography query returns, keeping it below 5.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with the core action and the optional refinement front-loaded; no filler and no restatement of the title.
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 six-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, ordering, and the key optional filter. It leaves minor gaps around coordinate-vs-city precedence and return shape, but nothing an agent needs to make the call is missing.
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 67% and the description explains that location or city drives the search and that service_query filters by service name, reinforcing those fields. However, latitude/longitude and radius_km carry no schema descriptions and the description does not explain their relationship, so it only partially compensates.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find bookable nail artist studios on NailMe') plus the geographic scope, which distinguishes it from get_studio (single studio) and find_free_slots (availability). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Clearly frames the use case: search by location or city, with an optional service filter. The 'bookable' qualifier implies it targets discoverable listings rather than a known studio, giving the agent context without naming an alternative tool.
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.