Skip to main content
Glama

Shanghai Streets Travel Guide

Get Place Details

get_place
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for a single place by its numeric ID or slug (e.g. 42 or '42-yu-garden'), including English/Hebrew/Chinese names, Chinese taxi addresses, verbatim opening hours, recommended dishes, exact coordinates (location.lat, location.lon), canonical links (links.page_he, links.page_en, links.map), sponsored booking link and private tour offer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_place"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPlace ID (e.g. 42) or slug (e.g. '42-yu-garden').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that it returns a complete record rather than a summary, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID, slug-vs-ID resolution, or any rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and the field enumeration after. The field list is long but each item is concrete; nothing is filler, though it reads as a run-on inventory.

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 no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (names, hours, coordinates, links, booking/tour offers) is exactly the right compensation and is done thoroughly. The remaining gap is failure/not-found behavior for an invalid ID or slug.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with the same examples (42, '42-yu-garden'). The description repeats rather than extends that meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full details for a single place by its numeric ID or slug.' That scope ('single place', keyed by ID) implicitly separates it from search/list/nearby siblings, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for when it already holds a place ID or slug. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that search_places should be used first to obtain an ID, and no exclusions.

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