DogPolicies

What is near a town

dogpolicies_near

Read-onlyIdempotent

Anything for dogs around a town, county or point: everything dog-related nearby, grouped by kind: beaches, parks, trails, hotels, campgrounds, cabins, places to eat and rest areas, each sorted by distance, with the dog rule and citation for each. The one call to make when a user names a place and asks "what can I do with my dog there?".

Takes a town or county name (no coordinates needed) or a point. Use dogpolicies_find_hotels when the question is about a specific dog's weight or budget, dogpolicies_plan_trip for a whole stay, dogpolicies_search_places for one kind with filters.

Examples:

"What can my dog do in Carmel?" -> place="Carmel"
"Dog beaches and parks around South Lake Tahoe" -> place="South Lake Tahoe", types=["beach","park"]
"Anything dog-friendly within 5 miles of here" -> near={lat:36.6, lon:-121.9}, radius_miles=5

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`near`	No	A point instead of a town; give one of place or near
`place`	No	A city, county or area in California or Nevada, e.g. "Monterey", "South Lake Tahoe", "Washoe County, NV", "Las Vegas", "East Bay" or "Lake Tahoe"
`types`	No	Kinds to include; all by default
`per_type`	No	Nearest results to show per kind
`radius_miles`	No	Search radius in miles around the town or point (an area is its own boundary; the radius is ignored)
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for readable text, 'json' for structured data	markdown
`dogs_allowed_only`	No	Leave out places where dogs are not allowed

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes	Date the data was built (YYYY-MM-DD)
`label`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`center`	Yes
`groups`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`radius_miles`	Yes
`attribution_url`	Yes
`attribution_text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

It adds significant behavioral context not in the schema, specifically that the results include the dog rule and citation for each entry. It also details that the output is grouped by kind and sorted by distance, which is valuable runtime information.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

While effective, the description is quite verbose due to the large amount of routing logic and examples it needs to provide. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but could be slightly tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The definition is exceptionally complete. It covers both primary input methods (`place` and `near`), expected output behavior (grouped, sorted, cited), and clear boundaries for its utility compared to other sibling tools.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is high. The description compensates by clearly defining the usage of the `place` parameter (city, county, area) and explaining how the `types` parameter works (kinds to include; all by default).

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 is highly specific, defining the scope ('everything dog-related nearby') and the output structure (grouped by kind, sorted by distance). It clearly distinguishes this general search from specialized sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit branching logic for tool selection. It instructs the agent to use this tool for general inquiries while pointing to `dogpolicies_find_hotels`, `dogpolicies_plan_trip`, and `dogpolicies_search_places` for specific use cases (budget, whole trip, or one kind of place).

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

All DogPolicies tools Inspect

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.