get_placeFetch one place’s full record by slug (preferred, e.g. "neuschwanstein-castle") or exact name: coordinates, founding year, worldwide fame rank and tier, short description, photo URL, Wikipedia and Wikidata links, and a deep link that opens it on the map. Unsure of the slug? Call search_places first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place | Yes | Slug (preferred, e.g. "colosseum") or exact name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (coordinates, founding year, fame rank, etc.) and that it's a read operation. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists key fields efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists all return fields and usage guidance. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed list of returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it specifies that slugs are preferred, provides an example ('neuschwanstein-castle'), and clarifies that exact names also work. This goes beyond the schema's simple description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch one place’s full record by slug or exact name'. It lists the specific fields returned (coordinates, founding year, etc.) and distinguishes from the sibling tool search_places.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends using a slug and provides guidance: 'Unsure of the slug? Call search_places first.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct query type: single record by slug, aggregate stats, country listing, kind listing, radius search, random selection, name search, and ranked top list. No two tools answer the same question.
Mix of verb-noun (get_place, list_countries, search_places) and noun-phrase tools (random_place, top_places, places_near). 'places_near' breaks the pattern, but all are snake_case and readable.
8 tools is well-scoped for a read-only places atlas; each tool serves a distinct user need with no redundancy.
Covers all expected read-only operations: lookup by identifier, search by name, spatial query, ranking, random, aggregates, and browse by country/kind. No missing lifecycle operations since the domain is read-only.