surf-trip-planner

Recommend surf trip destinations

recommend_surf_trip_destinations

Read-only

Use this when a user asks where to surf, where to fly for surf, how to plan a landlocked surfer trip, or which destinations fit their ability. Returns Strike Mission destination candidates with ability fit, season, travel, hazards, and dashboard links. For near-term trips (this month), candidates are ranked by live 10-day Strike Scores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`budget`	No	Budget preference for the trip.	any
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of recommendations.
`surferLevel`	No	User ability level. Use intermediate when the user can catch green waves and go down the line.	intermediate
`travelMonth`	No	Target travel month from 1 to 12. Omit to use the current month.
`originAirport`	No	Optional IATA origin airport, for example DEN, LAX, JFK, LHR, SYD.
`warmWaterOnly`	No	Set true when the user wants warm-water or boardshort-friendly surf.
`avoidHeavyWaves`	No	Set true for beginners, intermediates, family trips, or anyone avoiding serious reef/slab conditions.
`preferredRegions`	No	Optional regions to prefer, for example Central America, Europe, Pacific, Southeast Asia.
`includeBoatAccess`	No	Set true if boat-only waves are acceptable.
`preferredCountries`	No	Optional countries to prefer, for example Mexico, Costa Rica, Portugal.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotations), returns specific destination details, and for near-term trips uses live Strike Scores for ranking. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading purpose, then output, then a special case (near-term ranking). No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format (destination candidates with specific attributes) and ranking logic. It covers main use cases adequately, though could explicitly mention that results are a list of destinations. Annotations provide safety context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage hints for parameters like surferLevel ('Use intermediate when the user can catch green waves') and avoidHeavyWaves ('Set true for beginners, intermediates, family trips'), enhancing understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: recommend surf trip destinations based on user queries about where to surf, fly for surf, or plan trips. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output (Strike Mission destination candidates with ability fit, season, travel, hazards, and dashboard links) and the near-term ranking feature.

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 explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'when a user asks where to surf'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools. However, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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

All surf-trip-planner 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: compare_surf_destinations, recommend_surf_trip_destinations, and find_surf_trip_guides all provide destination recommendations and planning guidance, making it unclear when to use which. The descriptions partially differentiate them but boundaries remain ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_surf_destinations, get_live_spot_forecast) using snake_case. While verbs vary, the pattern is consistent and predictable. No mixing of conventions or unclear naming.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering recommendations, comparisons, forecasts, and spot details, the count is well-scoped for a specialized surf trip planner. Each tool serves a clear role without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core surf trip planning needs: destination recommendations, comparisons, live forecasts, and spot context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for managing user preferences or historical data), but agents can still plan effectively.

Resources

Need Help?