Find disc golf courses within a specified radius (km) of given coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of nearby courses to return (1-25, default: 10). | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (-90.0 to 90.0). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (-180.0 to 180.0). | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius in kilometers (0.1 to 100.0 km, default: 25.0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms radius-based filtering but omits behavioral traits such as read-only safety, whether results are sorted by distance, whether distance is included in each result, or what happens when no courses match. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that states the resource, the radius unit, and the coordinate anchor with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves the response shape undefined: the agent cannot know what fields each course contains, whether results are ordered by distance, or how empty result sets are handled. For a 4-parameter tool, the description is too thin to be complete.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes 'radius (km)' and 'coordinates' but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a clear verb-resource-scope structure: find + disc golf courses + within a radius of coordinates. The geospatial scope distinguishes it from siblings (get_course, get_recent_updates, search_courses) without needing to open the schema. It loses the fifth point because 'find' is a generic verb and the description does not explicitly contrast it with search_courses.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'of given coordinates' and the required latitude/longitude parameters signal that this tool is for location-based lookups. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_courses, nor any exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query mode: proximity, attribute search, detail lookup, and change tracking. No two tools do the same thing, and the descriptions clearly separate find_near from search.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (find/get/search) with course/courses as the object. Minor variation like 'get_recent_updates' still fits the convention.
Four tools cover a focused read-only disc golf course API without bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers discovery (search and nearby), detail retrieval, and change tracking, which are the core operations for this domain. No obvious missing workflow for a read-only course directory.