Search Outdoors (theoutdoorsapp.com) for U.S. hiking trails, parks, campgrounds, and lakes/rivers/reservoirs. Returns a list of results whose ids can be passed to the fetch tool for the full record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that results are ids for fetch, which aligns with a safe read operation. No contradictions; could mention pagination or result limits but current info is sufficient.
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, front-loaded with the app and types, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and output 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?
For a simple search with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and result usage. Could mention result format or count, but adequate given tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the query is a search term for the listed resources, but lacks format, length, or examples—minimal added meaning.
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 specifies the domain (Outdoors app), target resources (trails, parks, campgrounds, lakes/rivers/reservoirs), and the output usage (ids for fetch tool). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trails.search or parks.search by being a broader search.
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 usage for general search across categories and suggests using results with fetch, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use or recommend specific sibling tools like trails.search for specific categories.
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.
Multiple search tools (search, search.global, nearMe.search) overlap significantly, potentially confusing an agent. Safety overview vs. individual alerts also cause minor ambiguity, though most resource-specific tools are distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent resource.action pattern (e.g., trails.search, parks.get). However, exceptions like 'search', 'fetch', and 'nearMe.search' break the pattern, introducing mild inconsistency.
20 tools cover the diverse outdoors domain (trails, parks, campgrounds, weather, etc.) without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count fits well.
The tool set covers the core read-only needs for outdoor trip planning, including search, detail retrieval, weather, and safety info. Minor gaps like missing state/region listing or navigation features are acceptable given the read-only scope.
