Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

local_finder

Read-only

Find local business listings by keyword and location, returning names, ratings, reviews, addresses, phone, hours, websites, and Google CIDs for local SEO research and citation work. Filter by minimum rating.

Instructions

Use when you need local listings with Google CID identifiers (instead of GPS coordinates from maps). Returns names, ratings, reviews, addresses, phone, hours, websites, and CIDs. Supports min_rating filter. Costs 2 credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results. Default: 20, max: 100
`keyword`	Yes	Search keyword (e.g. "plumber")
`location`	Yes	City and state (e.g. "Orchard Park, NY")
`min_rating`	No	Minimum star rating filter (0-5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyword`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`location`	Yes
`location_used`	No
`total_results`	Yes
`location_alternatives`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "keyword": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "location": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "location_alternatives": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "code",
+          "type"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "location_used": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "address": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "cid": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "hours": {},
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "phone": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rank": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "reviews_count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "website": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "rank",
+          "name",
+          "rating",
+          "reviews_count",
+          "address",
+          "phone",
+          "website",
+          "cid"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_results": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "results",
+    "total_results",
+    "keyword",
+    "location"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the output fields returned and a concrete cost of 2 credits.

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?

Front-loads the usage condition, then lists return data, filter support, and cost in compact sentences with no waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and full schema descriptions, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: CID-vs-GPS distinction, return content, filter support, and credit cost.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description mentions the `min_rating` filter but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific capability: local listings with Google CID identifiers, and explicitly contrasts it with map-based GPS coordinate results. This lets an agent distinguish it from the `maps` sibling without opening schemas.

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 a clear use condition — local listings with CIDs rather than GPS coordinates — and names the alternative `maps` scenario. It does not cover when-not-to-use relative to other local listing siblings, but the primary routing cue is explicit.

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