ScareMap

Find haunts in a city or state

scaremap_find_haunts_in_city

Read-onlyIdempotent

List haunts in a US state, or in one city of that state, using the same state and city grouping as the ScareMap location pages. Call this when the user names a state or city ("haunted houses in Salem, Massachusetts") and has no coordinates. State accepts a name, a slug or a two-letter code. Results are ordered by review count, then name. If the city is not found, the error lists the cities ScareMap has in that state. To search by distance from a point use scaremap_find_haunts.

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": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "scaremap_find_haunts_in_city"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City name within the state. Omit to list the whole state.
`limit`	No	Maximum results. Default 25, maximum 50.
`state`	Yes	State name, slug or two-letter code, for example "Massachusetts", "new-york" or "TX".
`season`	No	halloween = seasonal haunt, year_round = open outside October.
`category`	No	Only this category. Call scaremap_categories for the list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`haunts`	Yes
`page_url`	Yes	ScareMap location page for this state or city.
`total_matches`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses result ordering (review count, then name) and failure behavior (city-not-found errors enumerate the state's known cities), which are genuinely useful traits not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then usage condition, then input/ordering/error details and the alternative. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and no nesting, the description supplies exactly the remaining pieces an agent needs: trigger condition, ordering, error fallback and the sibling to use instead.

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%, with examples for state/slug/code, limit bounds and category enum already documented, so the 3 baseline applies. The description's note that state accepts name, slug or two-letter code largely restates the schema, adding little beyond the city-error behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (haunts) and the precise scope (a US state, or one city within it), explicitly contrasting with the point-distance search done by scaremap_find_haunts. An agent can distinguish it from all three siblings without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user names a state or city ... and has no coordinates', and an explicit alternative for the opposite case (scaremap_find_haunts for distance search). The category enum also points to scaremap_categories for the valid list.

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

All ScareMap tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?