Skip to main content
Glama

acuris-mcp

geocode_address

Forward-geocode an address to coordinates (lat/lng) with an explicit accuracy_type — you always know what you got.

accuracy_type is an OPEN set; new tiers are added as reference data
improves. Do NOT write code that treats an unrecognised value as a failure.
Branch on the boolean `point_coordinate` instead, which is true when the
coordinate identifies one address. Current values: rooftop and
arrival_point (both point coordinates — a point on the building, or the
property's entrance / access point), then street_interpolated,
street_centroid, postcode_centroid, locality_centroid, admin_centroid.

House-number-level matches may ALSO carry `arrival_point: {lat, lng}` —
the premise's entrance/access coordinate beside the served pin (equal to
lat/lng when accuracy_type is arrival_point). Use it for delivery and
navigation; omitted when not on file.

`country` is ISO-3 lowercase. Give fielded parts or a single line in `q`.
For UK (gbr) addresses use validate_address instead — it returns point
coordinates from Royal Mail PAF.

A geocode result is a coordinate, not a verdict: it carries no `status`
and no partial_match. accuracy_type says only where the pin is; to tell
the user whether the address itself is valid, use validate_address.

Cost: 1 credit per successful geocode; failures are refunded. A result
whose only location is the state or province (admin_centroid) is not
charged and carries charged: false.

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": {
      "country": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "geocode_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
cityNo
stateNo
streetNo
countryYes
postcodeNo
house_numberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost (1 credit per successful geocode, failures refunded), the free admin_centroid case with charged:false, the open-set nature of accuracy_type, and the arrival_point supplementary coordinate. It also states what the result does NOT contain (no status, no partial_match).

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?

The core purpose and the accuracy_type branching rule are front-loaded, and every paragraph adds actionable information. It is somewhat long for a single tool, and the accuracy_type enumeration could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully documents the return shape: lat/lng, accuracy_type tiers, the optional arrival_point object and its semantics, and the charged flag. Combined with the UK/validation routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two most ambiguous params: `country` must be ISO-3 lowercase, and `q` accepts either a single line or fielded parts. The remaining five fielded parts (city, state, street, postcode, house_number) are left to their self-evident names, with no format guidance for postcode or house_number.

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+output: 'Forward-geocode an address to coordinates (lat/lng)'. The word 'forward' implicitly separates it from the sibling reverse_geocode, and the accuracy_type emphasis signals a distinguishing feature of this tool.

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 explicitly routes the agent elsewhere in two concrete cases: 'For UK (gbr) addresses use validate_address instead' and 'to tell the user whether the address itself is valid, use validate_address'. It also says what NOT to do (don't treat unrecognised accuracy_type as failure; branch on point_coordinate).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.