Directory and marketplace of local businesses and independent professionals. Find who does a job near a user, see ratings and prices, and get a direct link to request a quote and pay. Two tools: search_providers finds businesses by what they do (Spanish or English, resolves synonyms, optional lat and lng) and get_business returns one business detail: services, ratings, product catalog with prices, and the quote-and-pay link. Stateless streamable-http, no auth.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one searches for providers based on queries, the other fetches details for a specific business. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: 'get_business' and 'search_providers'. Consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server is on the thin side. While it covers the core search-and-retrieve workflow, the count feels minimal, though not unreasonable for a narrow domain.
The pair provides a complete read-only workflow: search for providers (including listing all services with an empty query) and fetch detailed business info. No obvious missing functionality for its stated purpose.
Full public detail of one 53ON business by its slug: services, ratings, product catalog with prices, and the link where the user can request a quote and pay. Use the slug returned by search_providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for service names. Default es. | |
| slug | Yes | Public slug of the business, for example creacionlaura. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying the operation is 'public' (no auth required) and specifying the detailed response fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose, lists key returned data, and provides a usage pointer without waste.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return contents and usage context. It could mention error cases or the absence of pagination, but the essentials are present.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the context that the slug comes from search_providers, which is minor. It does not explain lang beyond the schema's existing description.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('53ON business by its slug'), and clearly enumerates the returned content (services, ratings, product catalog, quote/pay link). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_providers by focusing on detail retrieval for a known slug.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to use the slug returned by search_providers, creating a clear prerequisite and referencing the sibling search tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find local businesses and independent professionals on 53ON by what they do. Accepts free text in Spanish or English and resolves synonyms, so "plumber" and "destapar caneria" both work. Pass lat and lng to limit results to that area; without them the search is nationwide. Call with an empty query to get the list of services 53ON covers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude of the user. Optional. | |
| lng | No | Longitude of the user. Optional. | |
| lang | No | Language of the query. Default es. | |
| limit | No | Max results, 1 to 50. Default 10. | |
| query | No | What the user needs, in their own words. Empty returns the service list. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining how the search behaves: it resolves synonyms ('plumber' and 'destapar caneria' work), supports Spanish and English, and defaults to nationwide without coordinates. This adds valuable transparency about multilingual support and synonym handling that is not in the schema or annotations.
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?
The description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, usage nuances, and special behavior. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information for correct tool usage.
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 search tool with no output schema and only two sibling tools, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, how to use it (free text, geographic limits), language support, and the empty-query service list. It doesn't mention pagination or result formatting, but that's not critical given the simplicity and the fact that it's a search endpoint.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 'query' parameter accepts free text and that an empty query returns a service list, and clarifies that lat/lng limit results to a geographic area. This additional context elevates the score.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to find local businesses and independent professionals by what they do. It specifies the input type (free text in Spanish or English) and the optional geographic filtering, distinguishing it from the sibling get_business which likely retrieves a specific business. The verb 'find' and resource 'local businesses' are explicit.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for searching by service or profession, with optional lat/lng to narrow results. It also explains the empty-query behavior (to get list of services). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling, the usage context is sufficient for an agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_businesssearch_providers
