Skip to main content
Glama

Gracie Barra Jiu-Jitsu

list_offers

List active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory. Returns discount label, promo code (if any), CTA link, validity window, and which business/place it belongs to. FLASH offers have a countdown deadline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoFilter by offer kind. FLASH = time-limited flash sale with countdown. Omit to return all active offers.
limitNoMax offers to return (default 20, max 60).

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the return fields and the FLASH offer nuance, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details return fields, and highlights a special case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers return fields well and mentions active offers and FLASH specifics. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, or default behavior, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds context for the 'kind' parameter by explaining FLASH offers have a countdown deadline, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists active promotions and deals in a neighborhood directory, and specifies the returned fields (discount label, promo code, etc.). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_events or list_products.

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?

The description implies usage for browsing deals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is adequate but lacks direct comparison.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even similar operations like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and the entities they handle (bookable services, restaurant tables, paid events, free events). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). This uniform convention makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to understand and select from.

Tool Count3/5

With 28 tools, the set is relatively large, exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While each tool serves a specific purpose within the neighborhood directory domain, the count feels heavy and may overwhelm simple use cases. A reduction or grouping could improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of user-facing operations for a neighborhood directory: searching places, browsing menus, booking services, reserving tables and event tickets, listing products and events, retrieving reviews and FAQs, and submitting forms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation or create_review tool), but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources