BeachFinder - beaches and live conditions

Search swimming spots

search_swim_spots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find beaches, lakes, bathing places and public swimming locations. Current conditions are fetched only for the highest-ranked results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No	Latitude supplied with user consent
`lng`	No	Longitude supplied with user consent
`city`	No	Destination city; use this instead of coordinates
`lang`	No		en
`limit`	No
`query`	No	Exact beach, activity or professional-service request in the user's language. Preserve narrow needs such as surfboard repair, freediving school, SUP rental, rafting guide, campervan rental, motorhome dealer, van conversion or RV repair.
`intent`	No		general
`country`	No
`radiusKm`	No
`maxWindKmh`	No
`minWaterTempC`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`links`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`answer`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`degraded`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`updatedAt`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`safetyNotice`	Yes
`primaryAnswerId`	Yes
`answerConfidence`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds that conditions are fetched only for top-ranked results, which is useful behavioral context not in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 11 parameters and low schema coverage, the minimal description leaves many parameters unexplained. However, the existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values.

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 description coverage is low (36%), and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 11 parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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?

The description clearly states it finds beaches, lakes, bathing places, and public swimming locations, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_beaches and search_surf_spots by covering general swimming spots.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions that current conditions are fetched only for highest-ranked results, providing a context for efficiency. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_beaches, search_surf_spots).

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 tools Inspect

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.

Search swimming spots

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources