IA-Asso.fr — French Associations Registry

search_near_location

Find associations near a specific city or postal code in France, optionally filtered by theme. Performs geographic search to return associations in the specified area, automatically widening to nearby communes (±25 km) when the exact area has no match. Useful for location-based queries like "AMAP near Les Hayes 41800" (query="amap", location="41800") or "chess clubs in Lyon" (query="échecs", location="Lyon").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return (default: 20, max: 100)
`query`	No	Optional theme or keyword to search near the location (e.g., "amap", "échecs", "théâtre"). Without it, all associations of the area are returned.
`radius`	No	Search radius in kilometers (default: 10, max: 50)
`location`	Yes	ONLY the place: city name (e.g., "Lyon", "Les Hayes") or postal code (e.g., "69001", "41800"). Put the theme in `query`, never here.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / location / description

Previous value: -"City name (e.g., \"Lyon\", \"Paris\") or postal code (e.g., \"69001\", \"75001\")"New value: +"ONLY the place: city name (e.g., \"Lyon\", \"Les Hayes\") or postal code (e.g., \"69001\", \"41800\"). Put the theme in `query`, never here."

addedInput schema / properties / query

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional theme or keyword to search near the location (e.g., \"amap\", \"échecs\", \"théâtre\"). Without it, all associations of the area are returned.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedMay 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic widening to ±25 km when no exact match is found, and provides semantic guidance about not mixing location with query. However, it does not disclose potential error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral trait, and examples. It is front-loaded with the primary action and requires no additional explanation. Every sentence earns its place without any 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 and four parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand purpose, key behavioral constraints, and parameter usage. It lacks information about return format or pagination, but for a search tool this is acceptable due to common patterns. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the widening behavior (not in schema), reinforcing the correct separation of location and query, and providing example usage. This helps an agent understand the interaction between parameters.

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 finds associations near a specific French city or postal code, optionally filtered by theme. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_associations by focusing on geographic search, and provides concrete examples that ground the purpose.

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 provides usage context ('useful for location-based queries') and examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for non-geographic searches. There is no direct comparison to siblings like search_associations, which would clarify the intended use case.

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

All IA-Asso.fr — French Associations Registry tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?