Free-text/semantic search over Indian grocery stores (name/region/store type).
| 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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'semantic search' but does not explain pagination behavior, required permissions, data sources, or limitations (e.g., geographic scope). This lack of detail hinders safe and effective invocation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) without becoming verbose.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain essential details for a search tool: how the query interacts with filters (city, state), the meaning of limit and offset for pagination, and what result fields are returned. This lack of context makes the tool harder to use correctly.
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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage. It mentions searchable fields (name, region, store type) but does not clarify the roles of parameters like city, state, limit, and offset. Thus, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool performs free-text/semantic search over Indian grocery stores, specifying the fields (name/region/store type). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like search_restaurants_by_text and search_temples_by_text, which target different categories.
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?
The description implies the tool is for searching grocery stores but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparative guidance is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.
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.