mappls-mcp

nearby_search

Find nearby points of interest in India—hospitals, ATMs, restaurants—using latitude, longitude, and keyword.

Instructions

Find points of interest near a location in India — hospitals, ATMs, restaurants, petrol pumps, schools, etc.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>",
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lng": "<lng>"
    },
    "name": "nearby_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	Yes	Reference latitude
`lng`	Yes	Reference longitude
`radius`	No	Search radius in metres (default 1000, max 10000)
`sortBy`	No	Sort order — dist:asc (nearest first), imp (most prominent first)
`keywords`	Yes	Category or keyword (e.g. 'hospital', 'atm', 'restaurant', 'petrol pump')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals a geographic restriction (India) but omits other behavioral traits like pagination, result count, or sorting behavior beyond what the schema provides. Returns format is not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action and resource, with zero waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the return structure, result limits, and how to interpret results. Agents may need to infer behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'find' and the resource 'points of interest near a location in India' with concrete examples (hospitals, ATMs, restaurants), distinguishing it from sibling tools like geocode or text_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for finding nearby POIs but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server