Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
neshan-mcp

neshan-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

What is near a place on Neshan

ns_nearby
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find nearby restaurants, cafes, parks, toilets, banks, ATMs, and parking around a place ID, with distance, rating, votes, and open status for each result.

Instructions

List what is around a place on Neshan by category: restaurants, cafes, parks, toilets, banks, ATMs, parking.

Use for "is there parking or an ATM near this place". Each place has id, name, lat/lng, distance_m, rating, votes and open status. For one kind of place near a point, use ns_search with near. Served only to Iranian connections; elsewhere set NESHAN_MCP_PROXY to an Iranian proxy.

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": {
      "place_id": "<place_id>"
    },
    "name": "ns_nearby"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
place_idYesPlace `id` from ns_search.
per_groupNoPlaces per category.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds information the annotations cannot: the fields present on each result (id, name, lat/lng, distance_m, rating, votes, open status) and the hard operational constraint that the endpoint is only reachable from Iranian connections unless a proxy is configured. The proxy/geo restriction is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral trait that prevents wasted calls.

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 sentences: capability and scope first, the selecting scenario second, the return shape third, with the sibling redirect folded into the middle. Every clause carries information — categories, fields, alternative routing, and the proxy caveat — and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the result fields and the distance unit (`distance_m`), plus the category list that determines result grouping. For a two-parameter, read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds real meaning by establishing that results are grouped into enumerated categories, which is what makes `per_group` (per category, default 3, max 10) interpretable rather than just a number limit. It does not restate the numeric bounds already in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List what is around a place") and immediately scopes it by enumerating the categories returned (restaurants, cafes, parks, toilets, banks, ATMs, parking). It also explicitly contrasts the aggregate behavior with the sibling that does the narrower job (ns_search with `near`), so an agent can separate 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It gives a concrete use case ("is there parking or an ATM near this place") and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ("For one kind of place near a point, use ns_search with `near`"). It also states an environment precondition for calling it at all (Iranian connections / NESHAN_MCP_PROXY), which is genuine when-to-use guidance rather than filler.

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