Search for pet-sitters across France. Find available pet-sitters near any French city with real-time pricing, reviews, distance and availability. Supports 6 service types (visits, dog walking, home-sitting day/night/full, professional boarding) and 43 animal types. Remote MCP server — Streamable HTTP transport, no API key required.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are completely distinct: one provides service type metadata, the other searches for petsitters. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_service_types and search_petsitters. The naming is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin, but the narrow scope of petsitter search justifies a small surface. It is borderline but not unreasonable.
The core functionality of searching petsitters is covered, along with service type metadata. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool to fetch full profile details, but the search results include profile links, making the surface fairly complete for a search-focused server.
Retourne la liste des types de prestations de garde animale proposées sur Blooming Pets, avec leurs codes et descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes codes and descriptions, giving partial insight into the output structure beyond annotation hints. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately states the return content. It contains no extraneous information and is exactly as concise as needed.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return content (list with codes and descriptions). The annotation details and sibling context complete the picture, making the description sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema already fully documents that no input is needed. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool that works as a simple lookup.
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 returns a list of pet care service types with codes and descriptions, using a specific verb 'Retourne' and a distinct resource. It is clearly different from the sibling search_petsitters tool, which searches for sitters rather than enumerating service types.
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 implies the tool should be used to retrieve the reference list of service types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple lookup, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recherche des pet-sitters disponibles à proximité d'une localisation en France. Retourne une liste avec nom, ville, distance, prix indicatif, note et lien vers le profil. Le service couvre : visites à domicile, promenade de chien, home-sitting (jour/nuit/complet), pension professionnelle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Numéro de page (défaut : 1, 8 résultats par page). | |
| animals | No | Liste des animaux à faire garder. Ex: [{"type":"chats","count":2}] | |
| date_end | No | Date de fin de la garde (format YYYY-MM-DD). Par défaut : même que date_start. | |
| latitude | No | Latitude GPS (optionnel si localisation est fournie). | |
| longitude | No | Longitude GPS (optionnel si localisation est fournie). | |
| radius_km | No | Rayon de recherche en km (défaut : 30, max 200). | |
| date_start | No | Date de début de la garde (format YYYY-MM-DD). Par défaut : aujourd'hui. | |
| localisation | Yes | Ville, code postal ou adresse en France (ex: 'Lille 59000', 'Paris 75011', '33000 Bordeaux'). Sera géocodée automatiquement. | |
| service_type | No | Type de prestation souhaitée. 'visite' = visites à domicile (par défaut), 'promenade' = promenade de chien, 'home_sitting_jour' = garde à domicile du propriétaire en journée, 'home_sitting_nuit' = garde à domicile la nuit, 'home_sitting_complet' = garde à domicile jour et nuit, 'pension' = pension professionnelle. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (list with name, city, distance, price, rating, profile link) and the service coverage, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or geocoding, but the schema covers those details.
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 just two sentences: the first front-loads the main action and output, the second lists the service types. There is no wasted text, and the most important information appears upfront.
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?
Given that all 9 parameters are fully described in the schema and the description provides a clear summary of return fields, the tool is adequately contextualized. The description does not mention the relationship with get_service_types or the geocoding behavior, but these are either inferable or documented in the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 provides a description for every parameter (100% coverage), including enums for animal types and service types. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond that; it merely restates some service types in prose, which is redundant with schema. Therefore, the schema carries the semantic weight, meriting a baseline 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 function: searching for available pet-sitters near a location in France. It specifies the returned data (name, city, distance, price, rating, profile link) and the service types covered, distinguishing it from sibling get_service_types which provides reference data rather than search results.
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 establishes the tool's primary use case: finding pet-sitters given a French location. It does not explicitly exclude any contexts or point to alternatives like get_service_types for service type reference, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.
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_service_typessearch_petsitters
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.