Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Beach Safety MCP

Beach Safety MCP

by evanfoglia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_beach_json

Retrieve beach conditions as structured JSON for programmatic use. Auto-geocode any beach name and return waves, wind, temperatures, UV, rip current risk, and safety score.

Instructions

Get beach conditions as structured JSON for programmatic use. Same as get_beach_report but in JSON format. Auto-geocodes any beach name.

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": {
      "beach_name": "<beach_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_beach_json"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeNoLatitude (optional)
longitudeNoLongitude (optional)
beach_nameYesName of the beach (e.g., 'Waikiki', 'Bondi Beach')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that any beach name is auto-geocoded, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, error behavior when geocoding fails, or what the JSON payload contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the sibling distinction. No filler text.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should say more about the returned JSON shape and the read-only/safe nature of the call. It is adequate for invocation but thin for a tool whose value is the structured payload.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline would be 3, but the 'auto-geocodes any beach name' note adds functional meaning by explaining why beach_name alone suffices and latitude/longitude remain optional. It does not add coordinate format or range details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get beach conditions as structured JSON') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_beach_report by output format. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives the selecting condition ('for programmatic use', 'JSON format') and names the alternative tool it mirrors, which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., human-readable output should go to get_beach_report).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools