Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tlacuilo

by io.github.mastercobeos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

empresas_cerca

empresas_cerca
Read-only

Finds Mexican businesses near a coordinate using INEGI's DENUE: keyword plus latitude, longitude and radius up to 5,000 m. Same fields as the name search. Price: $0.05 USDC per call (x402).

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": {
      "q": "<q>",
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lng": "<lng>"
    },
    "name": "empresas_cerca"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesKeyword or activity, 'todos' for any
latYesLatitude
lngYesLongitude
metrosNoRadius in meters, max 5000 (default 1000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden on everything else — and it does supply two non-obvious traits: the data source (INEGI DENUE) and the commercial model ($0.05 USDC per call via x402). That payment/cost disclosure is material for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It stops short of describing result volume, truncation, or failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, with cost and source tacked on compactly. Nothing is padded. The phrase 'Same fields as the name search' is slightly oblique — it forces the reader to resolve which sibling 'the name search' means — but it is efficient overall.

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?

The tool is a read-only, four-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description covers what the agent needs to select and invoke it, including cost and the hard radius cap. It leaves return structure entirely implicit ('same fields as the name search'), which is the main residual gap given no output schema exists.

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 schema already documents q, lat, lng and metros including the 5,000 m cap and 1,000 m default. The description restates the radius limit and the 'keyword' meaning but adds no new syntax, format, or encoding guidance (e.g. lat/lng as strings, 'todos' semantics are only in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (finds), a specific resource (Mexican businesses from INEGI's DENUE), and the exact input shape (keyword + lat/lng + radius up to 5,000 m). The clause 'Same fields as the name search' actively distinguishes it from the sibling name-based search, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 implied by 'near a coordinate' versus the referenced name search, giving the agent a reasonable selection signal. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no note on which coordinate reference system or country coverage applies, and no guidance on what to do when a result set is empty or the radius cap is hit.

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

All Tlacuilo 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