Free-text/semantic search over Indian yoga/dance/music studios.
| 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'free-text/semantic search' indicating approximate matching, but does not specify search behavior (e.g., fields searched, ranking, case sensitivity), limitations, or side effects. As a search tool, it is likely read-only, but that is not stated. The minimal description provides insufficient transparency.
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 concise at one sentence, but it is too brief to be effective. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, it does not earn its place because it omits critical details like parameters and usage. A 3 reflects adequate conciseness but significant loss of information.
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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on parameter semantics, pagination, filtering, and output behavior even though an output schema exists. The description does not provide enough context for reliable agent usage.
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%, meaning the input schema properties lack descriptions. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to explain the role of 'query', 'city', 'state', 'limit', or 'offset'. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 yoga/dance/music studios, which distinguishes from sibling search tools focused on other categories. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'by text' aspect that the name conveys, though it is implied by 'free-text/semantic search'. A 4 is appropriate as it is specific but could be more explicit.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_all or other search_*_by_text tools. It only implies a context (studios) but offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, which is particularly problematic given the numerous sibling 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.