Skip to main content
Glama

acuris-mcp

by com.acuris-geo

validate_address

Validate and standardize one postal address (240+ countries; UK via the official Royal Mail PAF with UDPRN + UPRN).

Give `country` as ISO-3 lowercase (e.g. usa, can, deu, gbr) plus EITHER a
free-text `address_line` OR fielded parts (street, house_number, city,
state, postcode). Returns an honest verdict — status "verified" (exact) or
"corrected" (fixed), or partial_match with reasons — plus the standardized
form, confidence, coordinates with an explicit accuracy_type, and, for
street-accurate USA/Canada matches, a FREE `enrichment` block (census
tract, block group, FIPS, CBSA/MSA, congressional district, school
district / Canadian equivalents).

Cost: 1 validation credit per successful lookup; no-match and errors are
refunded automatically (you pay for results, not attempts).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo
stateNo
streetNo
countryYes
postcodeNo
address_lineNo
house_numberNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits including return statuses (verified, corrected, partial_match), standardized form, confidence, coordinates with accuracy type, and free enrichment for US/CA matches. Cost and refund policy are also disclosed.

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 description is well-structured with key details front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, with each sentence providing useful information. Minor verbosity in listing countries could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description covers input formats, output verdicts, enrichment details, geographic scope, and pricing. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 explain parameters. It explains country format and the choice between address_line and fielded parts (city, state, street, house_number, postcode). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 states it validates and standardizes one postal address for 240+ countries, with specific mention of UK via Royal Mail PAF. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_us_ca_address and validate_addresses_batch.

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 explains how to provide input (country as ISO-3 lowercase plus either address_line or fielded parts) and cost model (pay per successful lookup). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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