search_locationsFind locations from Circle community data by free-text query, optionally selecting a private account for credentials.
Search locations. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text location query (e.g. 'San Francisco, CA' or 'Berlin'). | |
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, and "Reads community data" merely echoes the read-only nature without adding anything. No mention of result format, pagination, rate limits, or credential behavior despite the account parameter implying auth selection.
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?
Two very short sentences with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being disciplined conciseness.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description leaves key context unstated: what a "location" object is in this domain, and what "community data" being read implies for results. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not carry its share for a discovery tool.
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 both the free-text query and the named-account semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing on top of that, 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?
"Search locations" restates the tool name and title verbatim, so it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like search, search_member, or search_paywalls. "Reads community data" is a vague qualifier that adds no specificity about what a location is or what data is read.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other search_* siblings or list_* tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for geographic location lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.