Find US BJJ gyms with weekly schedules, open mats, and visitor drop-in prices.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search gyms, get details, list city coverage, and generate map links. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: find_gyms, get_gym, list_cities, map_url. The naming is predictable and readable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a niche BJJ gym discovery server. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or bloat.
The read-only surface covers search, detail, coverage checks, and map links well. A minor gap is no direct filtering by open mat or gym name, but core workflows are complete.
Find BJJ gyms near a US city, neighborhood, or ZIP. Defaults match the OpenMapp map: open to drop-ins, classes today. Returns drop-in policy, visitor fee when known, and matching class times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | City, neighborhood, address, or ZIP, same as the OpenMapp search box | |
| day | No | Restrict to this weekday or tomorrow. Overrides today | |
| kinds | No | Filter to Gi, No-Gi, and/or open mat | |
| limit | No | Max gyms to return. Default 8 | |
| today | No | Only gyms with a listed class or open mat today. Default true | |
| drop_ins | No | Only gyms that do not refuse class drop-ins. Default true |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: defaults for drop-ins and today's classes, US-only location scope, and the type of data returned (drop-in policy, visitor fee, matching class times). It does not detail edge cases or formatting, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and location scope are front-loaded, followed by defaults and return content. Every sentence adds useful information.
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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes what the tool returns. It covers the main intent, location inputs, default behavior, and key output fields. It could be more complete by explicitly routing users to get_gym for individual gym details or noting result ordering, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about default filtering and returned fields, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for q, day, kinds, limit, today, and drop_ins.
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?
States a specific action ('Find BJJ gyms') and a resource, with a defined scope ('near a US city, neighborhood, or ZIP'). It also clarifies the default filters and return content, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_gym and list_cities.
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 implies the use case: search for BJJ gyms by location, matching the OpenMapp map defaults. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as get_gym for individual gym details, or map_url/list_cities for other map-related actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full public gym card: address, drop-in policy, visitor fee, and the weekly timetable. Use an id or slug from find_gyms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Gym id or slug from find_gyms, e.g. 10th-planet-allentown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('get') and lists the returned content, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid ids, though for a simple read tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.
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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output content, and the second provides the input source. 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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns and where the input comes from. It could mention the return format, but the listed content fields give an agent sufficient understanding.
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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds the context that the id can be a slug from find_gyms, which slightly reinforces the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: retrieving a full public gym card with specific content (address, drop-in policy, visitor fee, weekly timetable). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('gym'), and the mention of 'full public gym card' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_gyms.
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 says to use an id or slug from find_gyms, which provides clear context on when to use this tool and where the input comes from. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the source reference to find_gyms implies the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US cities OpenMapp covers, with gym counts, how many welcome class drop-ins, and how many list an open mat. Use this to check coverage before find_gyms. Filter by city name or two-letter state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Filter by city name, e.g. Austin | |
| limit | No | Max cities to return. Default all matching, max 500 | |
| state | No | Two-letter US state, e.g. TX |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does convey the main behavior: it lists cities with coverage counts and supports filtering by name or state. However, it does not specify defaults, ordering, or response shape, so an agent still has some uncertainty about exact behavior.
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 tight sentences front-load the resource, the data returned, and the intended use case, with filtering hinted at the end. Every sentence 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?
For a simple list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the resource, data, purpose, and filter options. Only the exact return shape and default behavior are left implicit, and those are minor given the simplicity.
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?
The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, restating the q and state filters without new format or interaction details.
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?
States a specific action (list) on a specific resource (US cities covered by OpenMapp) and enumerates the data returned (gym counts, drop-in and open-mat availability). It also names the sibling find_gyms, making it distinguishable from the other tools.
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?
Explicitly positions the tool as a pre-flight check: 'Use this to check coverage before find_gyms.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when to invoke it and which alternative to reach for instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
OpenMapp map link for a city search, optionally with a gym drawer already open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | City or search text for the map search box | |
| gym_id | No | Gym id from find_gyms to open the details drawer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies the output is a URL ('map link') but does not explicitly state the return type, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. For a tool that likely just constructs a URL, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('OpenMapp map link'). It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, though it could benefit from slightly more specificity about usage.
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 simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are needed to help an agent decide when to call this tool and what to expect. However, the schema and the tool's straightforward nature partially compensate.
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 both q and gym_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond loosely mirroring the schema (city search ~ q, gym drawer ~ gym_id). Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 generates an 'OpenMapp map link' for a city search, optionally with a gym drawer open. The verb and resource are specific, and the mention of 'city search' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_gyms or get_gym, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used to obtain a shareable URL, nor does it indicate that find_gyms should be used first to get gym_id. The schema notes gym_id comes from find_gyms, but the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_gymsget_gymlist_citiesmap_urlBJJ gym, coach, event, and city data for AI agents. Free base tools, x402-paid premium.
Gracie Barra Jiu-Jitsu — directory of martial arts schools, classes, instructors, ranks, and events.
DOJO+ — directory of martial arts schools, classes, instructors, ranks, and events.
Read-only MatFlow data: pricing, competitors, features, FAQs for combat-sports gyms.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
