TuneWorks

Find autocross sites

find_autocross_sites

Read-only

Search the public TuneWorks Autocross Site Finder by coordinates and minimum paved-area dimensions. This may take several minutes because it queries live map and imagery providers.

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": {
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>",
      "radiusMiles": "<radiusMiles>",
      "minimumWidthMeters": "<minimumWidthMeters>",
      "minimumLengthMeters": "<minimumLengthMeters>"
    },
    "name": "find_autocross_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latitude`	Yes
`longitude`	Yes
`radiusMiles`	Yes
`minimumReviewScore`	No
`minimumWidthMeters`	Yes
`minimumLengthMeters`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tool`	Yes	TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result.
`status`	Yes	Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required.
`outcome`	No	Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.
`warning`	No
`candidates`	No
`resultNote`	No
`acquisitionScope`	No
`unreviewedCandidates`	No
`authenticationRequired`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.",
+  "enum": [
+    "no_vehicles",
+    "vehicle_not_found",
+    "vehicle_selection_required",
+    "no_data"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."New value: +"Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it queries live external map and imagery providers and may take several minutes, which tells the agent to expect latency and not to retry aggressively. It stops short of describing result volume, pagination, or whether searches are cached/charged.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The search scope comes first and the latency caveat follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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. However, for an open-world, several-minute query with six undocumented parameters, the description leaves out the radius semantics, the review-score filter, and any sense of result cap or ordering — an agent could easily call it with a wasteful radius.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only covers coordinates and minimum paved-area dimensions. It says nothing about radiusMiles (capped 1-30), the optional minimumReviewScore, what a review score means, or how width/length thresholds interact with the site match. Parameter names are largely self-explanatory, but the 0% schema coverage is a real gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (the public TuneWorks Autocross Site Finder), plus the two axes it filters on (coordinates and minimum paved-area dimensions). No sibling tool does anything similar, so the agent can place it easily, though the description never says so explicitly.

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 for locating physical autocross venues near a point. There is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (e.g. that it is a public/open-world lookup rather than garage data), and no named alternative or when-not-to-use case across the ~85-sibling catalogue.

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

All TuneWorks 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.

Resources

Need Help?