Skip to main content
Glama

Mercantry Registry

by org.mercantry

Search merchants

search_merchants

Filter-based search over the restaurant registry (coverage cities + timezones in get_registry_meta). NOT ranked: results come back in deterministic order (merchant_id ASC by default; distance ASC when lat/lng given and order_by="distance"). Returns compact records with pagination. Use get_merchant for the full signal dump on a specific merchant. All filters are optional and combinable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude for geo-radius filter (requires lng and radius_km)
lngNo
limitNo
offsetNo
open_atNoISO-8601 datetime; only merchants open at this time. With an explicit offset ('2026-07-18T19:00:00+09:00' or trailing Z) the instant is evaluated in each merchant's own timezone; without one it means each merchant's local wall clock
sandboxNoFilter by merchant kind. true = sandbox test merchants only (safe integration targets: they book end-to-end and return a SIMULATED confirmation, never dialing a real venue). false = real merchants only — use this for any booking a human will act on. Omitted = both. Every result carries `sandbox`; never present a sandbox confirmation to a user as a real reservation.
order_byNo
radius_kmNoRadius in km around lat/lng
party_sizeNoOnly merchants that can seat this party size
cuisine_tagsNoMatch ANY of these cuisines, e.g. ['japanese','korean']
neighborhoodNoExact neighborhood name, e.g. 'Mission'
bookable_onlyNoOnly merchants the registry can book right now (phone-verified, accepts reservations, not opted out)
attribute_tagsNoMatch ALL of these attributes, e.g. ['outdoor_seating','vegetarian_friendly']
price_band_maxNo
price_band_minNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are not ranked, have deterministic order (merchant_id ASC or distance ASC with lat/lng), and returns compact records with pagination. No mention of rate limits or destructive actions, but the provided traits are clear.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains pagination, ordering, and the distinction from get_merchant. It could mention what fields are in 'compact records' but that's minor. Overall adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 60%; the description adds value by explaining the open_at timezone behavior and the sandbox filter semantics. However, many parameters (e.g., lat/lng/radius_km dependency) are not elaborated beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate with some additional context.

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 'Filter-based search over the restaurant registry' and distinguishes itself from get_merchant by noting 'compact records with pagination' vs. 'full signal dump'. It also mentions coverage info via get_registry_meta.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool (for filtered search) and when to use get_merchant instead. It notes that all filters are optional and combinable, and describes the default ordering behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but provides sufficient guidance.

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

All Mercantry Registry toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clear and distinct purpose: booking operations (place, modify, cancel, status), merchant discovery (search, details, availability), registry metadata, and feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using underscore_case (e.g., place_booking, get_merchant, search_merchants). Verbs are descriptive and consistent across the set.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools are well-scoped for a booking registry server, covering all necessary operations without being overly numerous or sparse. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search merchants, get details and availability, place/modify/cancel bookings, check status, submit feedback, and registry metadata. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources