Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

acuris-mcp

by com.acuris-geo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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: a row with partial_match: true and no
`status` is partially matched (not confirmed; not valid, not not-found).

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

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": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "validate_addresses_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNo
addressesYes

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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains routing behavior for UK rows, result ordering, how partial matches are represented, and the credit/refund model. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a batch validation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and cap, then moves through input shape, routing, result semantics, and cost. Each paragraph adds distinct operational value, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining result order and the shape of returned rows, including the `partial_match` flag. Combined with the input-shape and cost details, an agent has what it needs to call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that each `addresses` entry may be a free-text string or an object with `input` and `country`, and that entries without a country fall back to the `country` parameter. That is exactly the missing schema semantics an agent needs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Validate up to 50 addresses in one call') and explicitly scopes the tool with mixed-country support and a 50-row cap. It also distinguishes this batch tool from the singular sibling by saying results have 'the same shape as validate_address', so the agent can route correctly.

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 gives clear operational guidance for inputs larger than 50 rows ('call this tool repeatedly') and explains that UK rows are routed automatically to a separate service. It does not explicitly say when to prefer validate_address instead of batching, but the single-vs-batch distinction is strongly implied.

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
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