Convert coordinates (lat/lon) into a street address.
USE FOR:
"What's at 45.5, 13.6?"
Turning raw coordinates into a human-readable location
NOT FOR: place name → coordinates → use geo-geocode instead.
EXAMPLE: User: "What address is at 46.05, 14.51?" → --lat 46.05 --lon 14.51
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude to reverse-geocode. | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude to reverse-geocode. | |
| timeout | No | Hard timeout in seconds (max 60). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description lacks behavioral details like return format, error handling, or rate limits, which are needed for full transparency.
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?
The description is concise, well-structured with headings, and front-loads the key purpose and usage guidance.
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?
Lacks mention of output format or error handling; could be more complete for a tool with no output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only showing an example usage for lat and lon without discussing the timeout parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool converts coordinates to a street address with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool geo-geocode.
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?
Explicit 'USE FOR' and 'NOT FOR' sections with an example provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (geocoding vs routing vs POI search). However, the multiple Slovenian cadastral tools (simple, deep, wfs-expert) overlap in functionality, potentially confusing an agent on which to use for a given task.
Tools within subgroups like 'geo-*' follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, and 'slovenia-*' tools use a noun_adjective pattern. However, across the whole set there is no unified naming convention, mixing prefixes like 'eu-', 'events-', 'hikes-', and 'hostel-'.
With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still well-scoped. Each tool addresses a distinct geographic need, although the breadth across many domains (transit, cadastre, weather, hostels) feels a bit broad.
The tool set covers core geographic operations (geocoding, routing, POI, isochrones, reverse geocoding) plus specialized Slovenian data and travel amenities. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of general worldwide POI beyond OSM or event discovery beyond Luma, but overall it is comprehensive for its domain.