capabilities

Get US Census geographies for coordinates (state to ZCTA)

location_us_geographies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the US Census Bureau geographies containing a latitude/longitude — state, county, census tract, block group, census block, incorporated place, congressional district and ZIP Code Tabulation Area — each with its FIPS or GEOID. The standard way to attach official US statistical geography to a point. Use when: Which county and census tract is this coordinate in? Not for: You have an address rather than coordinates — use location.us.geocode first. Related: location_us_geocode. Price: USD 0.003/call (x402), 0.002 (account key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	Yes	Latitude in decimal degrees (WGS 84), e.g. 38.8977.
`lon`	Yes	Longitude in decimal degrees (WGS 84), negative in the western hemisphere, e.g. -77.0365.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Capability output; full JSON Schema at https://api.eckari.com/v1/capabilities/location.us.geographies
`meta`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds return value context (list of geographies with FIPS/GEOID) and pricing, consistent with annotations. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

At ~85 words, the description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then returns, then use cases. Could be slightly tighter, but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a simple coordinate-to-geography lookup with 2 required params, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the return types, use case, sibling distinction, and pricing—complete and actionable.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both lat and lon. The description repeats 'latitude/longitude' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns US Census geographies for a lat/lng, lists specific geography types (state, county, census tract, etc.) with FIPS/GEOID, and distinguishes from sibling location_us_geocode by specifying coordinates vs. addresses.

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 use when ('Which county and census tract is this coordinate in?'), not for ('You have an address'), and names the alternative (location.us.geocode first). Also includes pricing, aiding agent decision-making.

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

All capabilities tools Inspect

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

Tools are largely distinct, targeting specific entities (UK company, US company, domain, LEI, FX, location, parcel, weather) or sub-aspects (e.g., accounts vs. charges vs. directors). Overlap exists between company.uk.profile and company.uk.status (both contain status info, but the latter is cheaper and focused). Also, company.uk.filings and company.us.filings_latest could be confused if an agent generalizes 'filings' across jurisdictions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: domain_entity_subject (e.g., company_uk_accounts, domain_expiry, weather_us_alerts). Underscores and lower case are used throughout. Verbs are implied by the noun (e.g., 'search' for lookup, 'detect' for identification). No mixed conventions or unpredictable names.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the high side but still reasonable for a general-purpose data server spanning multiple domains (company, domain, entity, fx, location, parcel, weather). Each domain gets a cohesive set, and the documentation justifies each tool. Could be slightly leaner if some niche tools (e.g., domain_expiry vs. registration) were merged, but overall scoping is acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Each domain offers good coverage: UK company tools cover CRUD-like operations (profile, status, search, filings, charges, directors, owners, registered office); similarly for US companies (profile, filings, resolve, latest filings). Weather has forecast, observation, alerts. Parcel only detects carrier (no tracking). Missing features like advanced filtering on company filings or less common domains, but core workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?