Find businesses by town and trade (accountant, lawyer, dentist, plumber…) with website, phone and address. OpenStreetMap open data. Free for 100 results/day, then $1.00 per 1,000.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Place name, e.g. "Brighton, UK". | |
| categories | Yes | Trades, e.g. ["accountant","lawyer"]. | |
| maxResults | No | Cap on results (max 500). | |
| onlyWithWebsite | No | Only return businesses that have a website. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states the data source is OpenStreetMap open data, discloses free-tier limits and overage cost, and lists output fields (website, phone, address). It does not cover all edge behaviors, but it provides substantial transparency for a read-only lookup.
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?
Two tight sentences deliver the core purpose, output fields, data source, and pricing with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 there is no output schema, the description names the key returned fields. Combined with full parameter coverage in the schema and the explicit cost model, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that location is a town and categories are trades, but it adds little beyond the schema for parameter-specific semantics.
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 names a specific verb and resource: finding businesses by town and trade, with examples of trades and the data returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lead tools such as leads_find_contacts and leads_verify_domains.
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 gives a clear usage context: search for businesses by location and trade category. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.