Skip to main content
Glama

BeachFinder - beaches and live conditions

by com.getbeachfinder

Compare BeachFinder spots

compare_spots
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two to five explicit BeachFinder spot IDs using only documented facts and current available conditions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoen
intentNogeneral
spotIdsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
linksYes
queryYes
answerYes
resultsYes
degradedYes
operationYes
updatedAtYes
confidenceYes
attributionYes
safetyNoticeYes
primaryAnswerIdYes
answerConfidenceYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already define readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it uses 'only documented facts and current available conditions', further constraining behavior. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 16 words, no redundancy. Verb 'compare' is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, return values need no explanation. Input constraints are stated. However, description does not elaborate on what 'compare' entails (e.g., dimensions or presentation). Still sufficient for basic use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It partially describes spotIds ('two to five explicit... IDs') but does not mention lang or intent parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'compare', the resource 'BeachFinder spots' via explicit IDs, and the constraints (2-5 spots, uses documented facts and conditions). This distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools that handle single spots or do not compare.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies when to use: to compare specific spots based on facts and conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BeachFinder - beaches and live conditions toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several search tools overlap in purpose: search_beaches, search_surf_spots, and search_swim_spots all return swimming/beach locations, with subtle differences in ranking criteria. The rest are clearly distinct (get_*, compare_spots, search_guides, etc.), but the overlapping trio creates selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun structure (get_, search_, compare_). However, search tools are inconsistent in noun usage: many end with '_spots' (surf_spots, swim_spots) while others use different nouns (beaches, guides, activity_providers). The pattern is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

With 12 tools, the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. The server covers a broad domain (beaches, conditions, activities, guides), and each tool serves a purpose. Some search tools could theoretically be consolidated (e.g., surf_spots and swim_spots), but the count is not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for a read-only beach info service: searching for spots, retrieving details and conditions, comparing spots, and finding community reports. Additional search variants for special interest (dive, river, vanlife) and activity providers fill out the niche. Minor gaps include no way to get community conditions for multiple spots and no explicit tide data, but these are not critical.

Resources