Skip to main content
Glama

acuris-mcp

by com.acuris-geo

request_trial_key

Get an instant FREE Acuris trial API key — 100 credits, valid 7 days, no card, no signup form. Idempotent: asking again with the same email within 24h returns the SAME key.

After receiving the key, reconfigure this MCP server connection with the
header "Authorization: Bearer <key>" (or set ACURIS_API_KEY for stdio).
Trial limits: shared per-IP daily caps and a lifetime cap of 40 UK (Royal
Mail PAF) lookups. Paid plans: https://www.acuris-geo.com/acuris-pricing/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: free, 100 credits valid 7 days, idempotency with same email within 24h, instructions for key usage, and trial limits (shared per-IP caps, 40 UK lookups). No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, idempotency, and post-usage instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers usage, limits, and prerequisite instructions. It could optionally mention the response format of the key, but this is not critical for function.

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?

The schema has one required parameter (email) with 0% coverage. The description adds context by mentioning that using the same email within 24h yields the same key, which provides meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'instant FREE Acuris trial API key'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that are address-related, as this tool is the only one for obtaining credentials.

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?

The description implies the tool is a prerequisite for using other tools by stating 'After receiving the key, reconfigure this MCP server connection...'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

All acuris-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct operations: validation (single/batch), geocoding, reverse geocoding, enrichment, UK postcode expansion, and account management. The main overlap is between enrich_us_ca_address and validate_address, which also includes an enrichment block for US/CA matches, potentially causing confusion about which to use.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_balance, expand_uk_postcode, validate_addresses_batch). The naming is uniform and predictable across the set.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately scoped for a geocoding/validation API. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat, and the count reflects the complexity of the domain.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows—single and batch validation, forward and reverse geocoding, enrichment, and UK postcode expansion—are covered. Minor gaps include the lack of a batch geocoding tool and the redundant enrichment functionality already present in validate_address, but these do not create dead ends.

Resources