Free-text search over restaurant name/cuisine/region, ranked by relevance.
Optionally constrain to a `city`/`state`. Featured listings are surfaced first. Use `offset`
to page further (the response's `has_more` says whether another page exists).
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions relevance ranking, featured listings first, and paging via offset, but lacks an explicit read-only hint or any side-effect disclosure. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints and paging. Excellent conciseness.
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 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main aspects: search behavior, constraints, and paging. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. Missing limit description is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query (free-text), city/state (optional constraints), and offset (paging), but omits the limit parameter. Partially covers the 5 parameters.
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 a free-text search over restaurant name/cuisine/region with relevance ranking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_restaurant_details by focusing on search rather than retrieval of specific details.
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 explains optional city/state constraints and paging behavior. It could explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for exact details use get_restaurant_details), but the context is clear enough.
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.