Fish and chips

Find fish and chips

find_fish_and_chips

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find fish and chip shops (chippies) near a location, nearest first. When the user names a place, town, landmark or postcode, convert it to approximate latitude/longitude yourself and pass lat and lng. Use query only to match text in a shop's name or address. With no lat/lng or query, the user's configured default location is used if they set one; otherwise ask the user where they are. Set open_now to only show shops known to be open right now. If a shop has a note, mention it to the user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_fish_and_chips"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	No	Latitude of the place to search near, e.g. 51.296. Supply together with lng.
`lng`	No	Longitude of the place to search near, e.g. -0.331. Supply together with lat.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of shops to return: default 5, at most 20.
`query`	No	Optional text that must appear in a shop's name, address or town, e.g. "codfather".
`open_now`	No	Only return shops known to be open right now.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Number of shops returned.
`query`	Yes	Text the search matched against shop names and addresses, if any.
`shops`	Yes
`message`	Yes	Short explanation, e.g. when nothing was found.
`searchedFrom`	Yes	Where the search was centred, when it had a point.
`unknownHoursLeftOut`	Yes	With open_now, how many nearby shops were left out because their hours are unknown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behaviour: the default-location fallback, the instruction to ask the user when no location is available, the hedge that open_now returns only shops "known to be" open, and the output-handling instruction to surface shop notes. It does not mention result limits beyond the schema or failure modes, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then parameter guidance, then the fallback rule, with virtually no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on with semicolon-chained clauses, but every sentence carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the hard parts: coordinate derivation, fallback ordering, the open_now filter and note handling. The only unaddressed area is result-size behaviour and what happens with malformed coordinates, which is a modest gap for a five-parameter read tool.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the agent must convert place names to approximate coordinates itself rather than passing a place string, and query is scoped to name/address text. One minor inconsistency: the description says query matches "name or address" while the schema adds town.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Find fish and chip shops (chippies) near a location, nearest first" gives a specific verb, resource, geographic scope and result ordering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_chippy, so it stops short of a 5, but the search-vs-lookup distinction is at least strongly implied by "near a location" and "nearest first".

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to geocode a user-named place itself and pass lat/lng, restricts query to text matching in name/address, and defines the no-argument fallback chain: configured default location, otherwise ask the user. It also states precisely when to set open_now. This is when/when-not guidance with no inference required.

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

All Fish and chips 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.

Resources

Need Help?