Korzy

Answer a question about a location

ask

Read-only

Answer one question (3 to 1000 characters) about a US location, an exact address or longitude and latitude, using only Korzy data, with inline citations to the records used. The question and the Korzy data it draws on are sent to an external language model. Costs 10 credits; at most 6 per minute and 200 per day per organization. Failed answers are refunded. Owner names and mailing addresses are never returned here; they come only from the paid owner field group of the batch parcel-fields tool, at 2x credits.

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": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "ask"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	No
`latitude`	No
`question`	Yes
`longitude`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses non-obvious behavior: data is sent to an external language model, answers carry inline citations, each call costs 10 credits, rate limits are 6/minute and 200/day per organization, and failed answers are refunded. It also states a hard data exclusion (no owner names or mailing addresses), which prevents wasted paid calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence carries load-bearing information (cost, limits, refunds, data exclusion) and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but nothing is filler and no sentence repeats the annotations or schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers cost, rate limits, data provenance, and the privacy boundary. The remaining gap is input-shape guidance for the 4 parameters, which matters given a 0% schema description coverage and an open-world external call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it gives the 3-1000 character question bound and names the two location input modes (address or lat/long). It never explains precedence or exclusivity between address and coordinates, whether coordinates must be supplied as a pair, or what happens if no location is given.

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 and resource ('Answer one question') limited by geography (US), input modes (exact address or longitude/latitude), and data source ('using only Korzy data'). It also distinguishes the tool from the batch parcel-fields tool for owner data, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting 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?

It clearly scopes use to a single location question and explicitly routes owner names and mailing addresses to the paid owner field group of the batch parcel-fields tool. It does not compare against the closer siblings (lookup, enrich, get_record), so the agent must infer when a cheap lookup beats a 10-credit answer.

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

All Korzy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?