Search for service businesses by location. Returns businesses with their booking URLs, ratings, and descriptions. Use get_business to see services and get_availability to check open slots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| category | No | Filter by business type | |
| location | Yes | City, city+state, or zip code. E.g. 'Brooklyn NY', 'Austin, TX', '90210' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / category / enumPrevious value: -[
- "tattoo",
- "barber",
- "hair-salon",
- "nail-salon",
- "spa",
- "fitness",
- "beauty",
- "photography"
-]New value: +[
+ "barbershop",
+ "hair_salon",
+ "tattoo_piercing",
+ "nail_salon",
+ "mobile_services",
+ "fitness_training",
+ "car_detailing",
+ "spa_wellness",
+ "yoga",
+ "personal_trainer"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation (search). It could be more explicit about nondestructive behavior, but the nature of a search makes it sufficiently transparent.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides guidance on related tools.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and directs users to other tools for more details.
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% (all parameters are described in schema). The description adds little beyond the schema, such as giving an example for the location field. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Search for service businesses by location') and what it returns (booking URLs, ratings, descriptions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_business and get_availability.
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 tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use get_business to see services and get_availability to check open slots.' This provides clear guidance.
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.