get_beachFull profile of one beach by id (its slug, from search results), by Wikidata Q-id, or by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_name | Yes | Beach id (e.g. "navagio"), Wikidata Q-id (e.g. "Q2460851") or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id_or_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Beach id (e.g. \"ksamil-beaches-al\") or beach name (e.g. \"Ksamil Beaches\")"New value: +"Beach id (e.g. \"navagio\"), Wikidata Q-id (e.g. \"Q2460851\") or name"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style lookup and that the identifier can be of three types, but it does not describe the response shape, potential 'not found' behavior, or whether name matching is exact or fuzzy. This is acceptable for a simple getter but leaves some uncertainty.
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 well-structured sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists identifier options. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool retrieves, how to identify the beach, and where the id comes from. The main gap is that 'full profile' is not expanded, but this is minor given the simplicity of the tool.
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% and already explains the id_or_name parameter with examples. The description adds the useful nuance that the id is a slug coming from search results, but it largely restates what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('full profile of one beach'), and distinguishes it from the sibling search tool by emphasizing a single beach rather than a list. Listing three lookup modes (slug, Wikidata Q-id, name) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'its slug, from search results' implicitly tells the agent to use search_beaches first to obtain the id, which is useful routing context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the one-beach lookup purpose is clear enough.
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 has a clearly distinct role: search returns compact beach records, get_beach returns one full profile, sea_temperature_year provides one beach's monthly temperature cycle, and warmest_beaches_in_month ranks beaches across the atlas. There is no realistic risk of picking the wrong tool for a task.
The names are readable and consistently snake_case, but they mix two styles: get_beach and search_beaches are verb-first commands, while sea_temperature_year and warmest_beaches_in_month are descriptive noun phrases. This is not chaotic, but the pattern is inconsistent.
Four tools is well-scoped for a specialized read-only beach atlas. Each tool serves a distinct core need—finding beaches, getting details, checking one beach's temperature pattern, and comparing beaches by temperature—without redundancy.
For a read-only atlas focused on beach information and sea temperatures, the surface is complete: discover beaches, retrieve full profiles, inspect annual temperature cycles, and find warm destinations by month. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations are apparent.