Portugal (public data)

local_accommodation

Look up the national register of local accommodation (Alojamento Local, RNAL).

Answers "is this flat/guesthouse registered?" and "how many AL are on my street?". Args: registration: the RNAL number, e.g. "12345/AL" or "12345". name: part of the registered name, e.g. "InSuites". address: part of the street address, e.g. "Rua de Santa Catarina". postal_code: "1200-290", or "1200" for the whole area. municipality: e.g. "Lisboa", "Porto", "Albufeira". lat, lon: registered accommodation within radius_m metres (max 2000) of a point.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	No
`lon`	No
`name`	No
`limit`	No
`address`	No
`radius_m`	No
`postal_code`	No
`municipality`	No
`registration`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful constraint detail not present in the schema ('radius_m metres (max 2000)'), but it never says how the nine optional filters combine (AND vs OR), what happens when no arguments are supplied, or whether results are ranked/paginated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the motivating questions are front-loaded, followed by a compact per-argument list. Every line carries information an agent needs to build a call; there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are well covered. The remaining gap is the semantics of combining multiple optional filters and the no-argument behavior, which matter for a nine-parameter, zero-required tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents formats and examples for registration ('12345/AL' or '12345'), postal_code ('1200-290' or '1200' for the whole area), and the lat/lon + radius_m combination. Only 'limit' is left undocumented, which is a minor gap against eight well-explained parameters.

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?

The description names a specific resource and verb: 'Look up the national register of local accommodation (Alojamento Local, RNAL)', and grounds it with two concrete question types ('is this flat/guesthouse registered?', 'how many AL are on my street?'). It is clearly distinguishable from the listed siblings (bus, parliament, fuel, etc.), though it does not explicitly state any non-overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The two example questions give clear context for when to reach for this tool (verifying registration status, counting AL on a street). There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but no sibling appears to cover the same register, so the risk of misrouting is low.

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

All Portugal (public data) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.