Catalog genres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string. | |
| lng | No | Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string. | |
| radius_km | No | Radius in kilometers. Send a number, not a string. | |
| selected_type | No | selected_type | |
| selected_subcategories | No | selected_subcategories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionAdded value: +"Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string."Input schema / properties / lat / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / lng / descriptionAdded value: +"Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string."Input schema / properties / lng / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / radius_km / descriptionAdded value: +"Radius in kilometers. Send a number, not a string."Input schema / properties / radius_km / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / selected_subcategories / descriptionAdded value: +"selected_subcategories"Input schema / properties / selected_type / descriptionAdded value: +"selected_type"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether the result is a static catalog, requires geolocation, is paginated, or is cached. With five parameters and zero behavioral context, a 1 is warranted.
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 words are maximally concise and front-loaded. However, under-specification is a problem, so it cannot score 5.
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 tool with five parameters (three location-based), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits the relationship between location inputs and genre results and gives no return-shape hints.
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 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning (e.g., why lat/lng/radius are needed for a genre catalog), so it does not exceed the baseline.
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?
"Catalog genres" is a near-tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what action is taken (retrieve? list? build?). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_subcategories or get_neighborhoods, which follow the same catalog-lookup pattern.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subcategories. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
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.