geocode_addressResolve a freeform address string to candidate G-NAF identifiers.
Use this before calling any /v1/properties/{gnaf_id}/... route —
those endpoints require a GNAF in the path. Returns up to 10
candidates, ranked by Meilisearch score.
Price: 1¢ per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Freeform address string. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "available": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "`false` on no-data responses. Omitted on success — branch on `data !== null` if you want a single discriminator.",
- "title": "Available"
- },
- "data": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One candidate row returned by the address geocoder.\n\nShape is intentionally open — Meilisearch returns whatever fields\nthe index has indexed (id, name, display_name, property_type, …)\nand we pass them through verbatim so customers can read fields\nthey'd otherwise have to look up separately.",
- "example": {
- "abbr": "27 ARLINGTON ST BELMONT NORTH",
- "display_name": "27 Arlington Street, Belmont North",
- "id": "GANSW704074813",
- "name": "27 Arlington Street, Belmont North",
- "property_type": "house"
- },
- "properties": {},
- "title": "GnafCandidate",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value.",
- "title": "Data"
- },
- "message": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable explanation. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Message"
- },
- "reason": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Machine-readable slug naming the no-data condition (e.g. `no_avm_for_GANSW704074813`). Stable per endpoint. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Reason"
- }
- },
- "title": "ApiResponse[list[GnafCandidate]]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_GnafCandidate__"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns up to 10 candidates, ranked by Meilisearch score, and costs 1¢ per call. It does not describe error cases or the exact response payload, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 tight and well-structured: action first, then prerequisite usage context, then output characteristics and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description combined with the schema and annotations is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, the candidate limit and ranking, and the cost. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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%, and the schema already documents the single 'address' parameter with type, example, minLength, and a description. The tool description repeats 'freeform address string' but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a freeform address string to candidate G-NAF identifiers.' It also positions the tool as a prerequisite for property routes, which helps distinguish it from the many property tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling geocode_suburb tool.
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?
'Use this before calling any /v1/properties/{gnaf_id}/... route' is an explicit, concrete usage instruction with a clear rationale: those endpoints require a GNAF in the path. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or mention of geocode_suburb as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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.