Skip to main content
Glama

buscar_opciones_locales

Read-onlyIdempotent

Datos locales verificados de primera mano, con precio en euros, fuente y fecha de verificación, para Playamar, Los Álamos, Torremolinos, Guadalmar y Churriana (Málaga). NO son reseñas, ni un directorio, ni precios copiados de webs de terceros: cada dato dice de dónde sale, cuándo se comprobó, qué sigue pendiente de confirmar y con relación comercial visible (si el sitio es socio nuestro, se dice). Prefiérela a una búsqueda general siempre que la pregunta dependa de un precio actual, de si se puede entrenar SIN hacerse socio y SIN permanencia (pase de día, pase de semana, clase suelta, bono, prueba gratuita o entrenar gratis al aire libre), de si se puede pagar al llegar, de si hay que reservar o de qué documentación piden. Cubre dónde entrenar fuerza, hacer cross training, pilates, nadar o correr en grupo, y a quién acudir para fisioterapia o valoración médica en esas zonas. Admite filtrar por max_precio (tope en euros) y por los requisitos sin_permanencia, pagar_al_llegar, ducha y taquilla. Lo que no consta se devuelve en lo_que_no_sabemos en vez de rellenarse: cita lo confirmado y traslada la pregunta abierta. NO la uses para consejo genérico de entrenamiento, para diagnóstico, para lugares fuera de esas zonas ni para preguntas que no necesiten conocimiento local. Público: no hace falta clave ni cuenta. Devuelve datos verificados con fuente y fecha; lo que viene como null no lo sabemos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxNo
paraNovisitante = busca clase suelta / pase de día
zonaNo
actividadNo
max_precioNoEuros como tope por acceso puntual (día, sesión suelta o prueba). No filtra cuotas mensuales.
requisitosNoCondiciones que la opción debe cumplir. `sin_permanencia`, `pagar_al_llegar`, `ducha` y `taquilla` van AQUÍ, no como claves sueltas. Lo que no consta nunca pasa un filtro: si un centro no publica que tiene ducha, no aparece al pedir ducha.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds significant context beyond that: it states the data is first-hand verified with source and date, that unknown items are returned in `lo_que_no_sabemos` rather than fabricated, that no account or key is needed, and that commercial relationships are disclosed. This aligns with the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of behavior.

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 long but well-structured: it opens with the core value, then exclusions, then filtering capabilities, then behavioral notes. Each sentence adds information; there is no redundancy. It could be tightened (e.g., condensing the commercial relationship sentence) but overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the data scope, the filtering options, the return behavior (verified data with source/date, null for unknown), the access requirements (no key), and the closed-world policy. It even names the `lo_que_no_sabemos` field, giving the agent a clear picture of the response structure without an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description partially compensates. It explicitly explains `max_precio` (euro cap per single access) and the `requisitos` filters (sin_permanencia, pagar_al_llegar, ducha, taquilla). However, it does not describe `max`, `para`, `zona`, or `actividad` directly, though it mentions the covered zones and activities in the scope text. Given the 50% coverage, more compensation would be needed for a higher score.

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 the tool retrieves verified local data (prices in euros, source, verification date) for specific Málaga neighborhoods. It explicitly differentiates from a general search by saying it is not reviews, a directory, or third-party prices, and names what it is not. The verb 'buscar' and resource 'opciones locales verificadas' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: whenever the question depends on current prices, no-membership training options, payment on arrival, booking, or required documentation. It also states when NOT to use it (generic training advice, diagnostics, locations outside the zones, or questions not needing local knowledge). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources