Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

abatement

by io.github.itsryanarmani
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_listings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search published abatement contractors by text, place and category.

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": "search_listings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoSearch text, with at least one letter or digit. Matches name, categories, attributes, description and place. Typos fall back to close matches.
cityNoCity slug, from /places.
sortNo`relevance` needs `q` and is the default with it. `name` is the default without `q`. `recent` is newest first.
limitNoItems per page.
cursorNo`page.nextCursor` from the previous response. Opaque. Send the same filters and `limit`.
regionNoRegion slug, from /places.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, any case. A country the directory does not cover, as listed in /places, gives 400.
categoryNoCategory slug, from /categories. A parent slug also matches its children.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond that: results are limited to *published* contractors, so unpublished records are silently excluded. It says nothing about result volume, ranking, or pagination behavior, which is a notable gap for a search endpoint.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with the resource and the filtering dimensions front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

All eight parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, so callers can construct a request correctly. However, with no output schema the description should say something about what comes back (items plus a nextCursor), and it gives no hint that this is a paginated list endpoint. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (including sort defaults, cursor semantics, and slug sourcing from /places and /categories) is already documented. The description only maps loosely onto q, city/region/country and category and adds no constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (search) and a specific resource (published abatement contractors) and lists the searchable dimensions: text, place, category. That is enough to distinguish it from single-record siblings like get_listing and bulk listing siblings like list_products. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the discovery entry point and that get_listing should follow for a known record. No prerequisites, pagination caveats, or exclusions are stated.

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

All abatement toolsInspect
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