List every 787daily Puerto Rico adventure spot with its activities and the CURRENT activity-window verdict (good/fair/marginal/poor, scored from buoy + marine data at the site's last build). Use a spot's key with get_conditions for live numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that verdicts are 'scored from buoy + marine data at the site's last build,' implying they are not real-time, and directs users to get_conditions for live data. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple listing function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides a usage alternative. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (spots, activities, verdict categories), the data basis (buoy + marine data), and how to obtain live numbers. It also implicitly indicates the output contains spot keys, making it self-sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool lists 'every' spot with no filtering, ensuring there is no ambiguity about the lack of parameters. It also mentions using a spot's key, implying the output includes keys, which is useful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing all 787daily Puerto Rico adventure spots with their activities and current activity-window verdicts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_conditions, which returns live numbers, and from sibling filtering tools like get_by_entity or get_by_municipality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Use a spot's key with get_conditions for live numbers,' providing a direct alternative for real-time data. This indicates when to use this tool (for stored verdicts) versus get_conditions (for live numbers), meeting the 'explicit alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: ask synthesizes answers, search_news does semantic retrieval, keyword_search_news does keyword matching, and the get_/list_ tools target specific data types. However, search_pr_news is a redundant alias, and get_by_entity vs get_by_municipality overlap on place queries, creating minor ambiguity.
Tool names use a mix of prefixes (get_, list_, search_) and include a bare verb (ask), which is not fully consistent. The legacy alias search_pr_news further deviates from the pattern, though the rest are readable and predictable.
With 13 tools spanning news, Q&A, weather, cost-of-living, and safety, the count fits the server's broad purpose without being excessive. Each major domain has dedicated tools, and despite one redundant alias, the set remains well-scoped.
The tool set covers article discovery, synthesis, weather, demographics, and safety statistics, providing solid domain coverage. Minor gaps include no full-text article retrieval and no dedicated section browsing, but summaries and links make these workable.