Free-text/semantic search over Indian sweets shops & bakeries.
| 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, yet it only mentions 'free-text/semantic search'. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether results are summaries or full details.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. However, it could include more useful information 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?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema not mentioned, the description is too minimal. It omits details on filtering by city/state, pagination via limit/offset, and result format.
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 (query, city, limit, state, offset). Users must infer functionality from parameter names alone.
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 the tool performs 'Free-text/semantic search' over 'Indian sweets shops & bakeries', which specifies both the action type and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_indian_sweets or other search tools. The description implies general usage but lacks context for optimal invocation.
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.