Skip to main content
Glama
GongRzhe

Travel Planner MCP Server

search_attractions

Find attractions and points of interest in a specified location, filter by categories, and define search radius for personalized travel planning.

Instructions

Searches for attractions and points of interest in a specified location

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoriesNoCategories of attractions
locationYesLocation to search attractions
radiusNoSearch radius in meters

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the search_attractions tool. Validates input using SearchAttractionsSchema and returns a formatted text response with mock attraction search results.
    case "search_attractions": {
      const validatedArgs = SearchAttractionsSchema.parse(args);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Found attractions near ${validatedArgs.location}\n` +
                  `Radius: ${validatedArgs.radius || "5000"} meters\n` +
                  `Categories: ${validatedArgs.categories?.join(", ") || "All"}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the search_attractions tool: location (required), radius and categories (optional).
    const SearchAttractionsSchema = z.object({
      location: z.string().describe("Location to search attractions"),
      radius: z.number().optional().describe("Search radius in meters"),
      categories: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Categories of attractions"),
    });
  • index.ts:74-78 (registration)
    Registration of the search_attractions tool in the list returned by ListToolsRequestHandler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "search_attractions",
      description: "Searches for attractions and points of interest in a specified location",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(SearchAttractionsSchema),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Searches for') but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list format, pagination), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data sources), or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this level of detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of attractions with details), behavioral aspects, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Location to search attractions', 'Search radius in meters'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Searches for') and resource ('attractions and points of interest'), and specifies the scope ('in a specified location'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_accommodations' or 'get_transport_options' by focusing on attractions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools (none present), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_itinerary' or 'optimize_itinerary', which might be used in conjunction. Without any usage context, this is a significant gap in helping the agent select the right tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GongRzhe/TRAVEL-PLANNER-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server