Find Yelp business listings by search term and location, returning structured results for local research.
Search Yelp businesses. Searches Yelp businesses for a term and location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search term | |
| limit | No | Max results to return, 1-50 | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| location | Yes | Neighborhood, city, state, or zip code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not mention result ordering, that limit caps at 1-50, that offset pagination exists, whether results are bundled or ranked, or any rate-limit/auth expectations.
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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is pure redundancy — it repeats the verb, resource, and the two required fields already given in the first sentence. Roughly half the text fails to earn its place.
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?
For a four-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what to supply but not what it gets back or how to page through results. A tool of this simplicity does not demand much more, so 3 is fair rather than harsh.
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 100%, so every parameter (term, location, limit, offset) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or ranking meaning beyond restating that term and location are the inputs, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 first sentence states a clear verb (Search) and resource (Yelp businesses), but the second sentence merely restates the same idea with the parameters appended, adding no further specificity. It never distinguishes this list/search tool from siblings like yelp_business or yelp_business_reviews, which an agent must differentiate on its own.
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 when-to-use guidance is given at all — nothing says this is the entry point for discovering business IDs that feed yelp_business, nor when to prefer it over yelp_geocode. The only context is the implied term/location pair, which the required-parameters list already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.