Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

places_search

GET /places/search — Search Google Places

Search for places by name. Use this to look up a Google Place ID before creating a trip or referencing a venue.

Results include a type field that classifies each match as city (a chapter-level locality usable for trips) or venue (a specific establishment, address, or country/region match — usable for events/meetups but rejected by POST /trips). Filter on type === "city" if you're building a trip-creation flow; pass either type to event/meetup APIs.

Every result also includes the full enriched location (description, lat, lon, region, regionCode, utcOffsetMins) so the same payload can be passed straight to POST /trips without a follow-up GET /places/:placeID lookup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query (city name, country, address, etc.)
limitNoMax results (1-20)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields (type, enriched location) and their implications for API usage (venue matches rejected by POST /trips). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention rate limits/auth, which would elevate transparency further.

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 description is front-loaded with the HTTP method and verb, and every sentence adds value. It is structured logically: start with purpose, then usage context, then result interpretation. No redundant or extraneous information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It covers the primary use case, result filtering, and integration with other endpoints (POST /trips, event/meetup APIs). The agent has all necessary information to select and use the tool effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic nuance beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It rephrases the query purpose but provides no additional context about acceptable formats or edge cases for either parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches for places by name and explains its primary use case for looking up a Google Place ID before creating a trip or referencing a venue. It distinguishes itself from the 'place' sibling by noting that results can be passed directly to POST /trips without a follow-up GET /places/:placeID.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (before creating a trip or referencing a venue) and how to filter results (type === 'city' for trips, either type for events/meetups). It implicitly contrasts with the alternative 'place' tool by stating that no follow-up is needed, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources