Free-text/semantic search over Indian community organizations & associations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the search is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. The description only states the high-level function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At one sentence and 10 words, the description is very concise. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity. A middle score reflects that while there is no wasted text, the lack of structure (e.g., no bullets or further context) limits its informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination (limit/offset) or filtering (city/state), which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly. The output schema exists but the description still needs to cover behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. There is no explanation of what 'query', 'city', 'state', 'limit', or 'offset' mean, their formats, or constraints. The agent must rely solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs free-text/semantic search over Indian community organizations and associations, identifying the verb (search) and resource (community organizations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_restaurants_by_text or search_all, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.