Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

yahoo_search_local

Read-only

Returns Yahoo's local-business-search results for a query: name, category, price range, address, phone, open status, rating, and review count. Location is resolved from the query text itself, the same way a user would type into Yahoo's own local search box (e.g. "pizza near seattle wa"), not a separate coordinate parameter. Results are fetched from Yahoo's own server-rendered local-search page. q: Search query, including any location intent. Use yelp_search to search Yelp businesses.

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>"
    },
    "name": "yahoo_search_local"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query, including any location intent

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Added value: +"Search query, including any location intent"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: location is resolved from query text (not a coordinate parameter) and results come from Yahoo's server-rendered page. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the key domain behavior is disclosed.

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-loads the result contents, then location handling, then the alternative, which is the right order. Slight redundancy: the location-in-query idea appears both in the body and again as "q: Search query, including any location intent," costing a little efficiency.

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-value explanation is optional (the field list is bonus context). For a single-parameter search tool with safety annotations, the description covers what to pass and what to expect; only minor gaps like result-count/pagination behavior remain.

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 and a single parameter, the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining how location intent is expressed inside q and giving an example query string, which clarifies usage of the one parameter rather than merely restating it.

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 and resource ("Returns Yahoo's local-business-search results") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also names a sibling (yelp_search) as a distinct source, making it easy to tell apart from alternatives in this large tool set.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit alternative ("Use yelp_search to search Yelp businesses") and a concrete query example ("pizza near seattle wa"), which communicates when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it compares to other local-search siblings like google_map_search.

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

All Crawlora MCP 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