Skip to main content
Glama

acuris-mcp

by com.acuris-geo

validate_addresses_batch

Validate up to 50 addresses in one call (mixed countries allowed).

`addresses` is a list where each entry is either a free-text string, or an
object {"input": <string or fielded object>, "country": "iso3"}. Entries
without their own country use the `country` parameter. UK (gbr) rows are
routed individually to the Royal Mail PAF service; everything else goes
through the batch endpoint. Results come back in the same order, each with
the same shape as validate_address.

Cost: 1 validation credit per successfully validated row; failed rows are
refunded. For files bigger than 50 rows, call this tool repeatedly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNo
addressesYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses cost (1 credit per successful validation, refunded for failures), result ordering, shape matching validate_address, and routing logic. No annotations are present, so description fully carries behavioral disclosure.

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?

Starts with a clear lead sentence, then uses a structured list format (though plain text) to explain parameter details, cost, and routing. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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?

Covers all needed aspects: limit, mixed countries, cost, routing, result format, and how to handle larger files. No output schema, but result shape is referenced to validate_address. Sibling tools provide context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema: addresses can be strings or objects with 'input' and 'country', and the 'country' parameter serves as default. Schema coverage is 0%, but description completely compensates.

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 the tool validates up to 50 addresses in one call with mixed countries allowed, differentiating it from single-address tool validate_address and other sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for up to 50 addresses, mixed countries, and repeat calls for larger files. Also indicates routing behavior for UK addresses vs others.

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