Turn a search phrase into filters for the signed-in user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_lat | No | Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string. | |
| user_lng | No | Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string. | |
| radius_km | No | Radius in kilometers. Send a number, not a string. | |
| search_query | Yes | Natural-language query. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "radius_km": {
+ "description": "Radius in kilometers. Send a number, not a string.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "search_query": {
+ "description": "Natural-language query.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user_lat": {
+ "description": "Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "user_lng": {
+ "description": "Decimal degrees. Send a number, not a string.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "search_query"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the tool returns filters directly, invokes downstream searches, requires authentication, or is read-only; 'for the signed-in user' is the only behavioral hint and it is implicit.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good structurally. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing, so it does not rise above adequate.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know what the produced 'filters' are and how they relate to the geospatial parameters, but the description never addresses this.
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 all four parameters including lat/lng/radius units and the natural-language query. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a transformation (search phrase -> filters) with a scope hint ('for the signed-in user'), so the purpose is decipherable. But it does not distinguish this tool from the many search siblings (search_parse_intent, search_smart, search_rerank, search_embed), leaving the agent to guess which search entry point applies.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when another search tool is preferable, and no prerequisites. With five sibling tools sharing the 'search' prefix, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
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.