Coordinates to address.
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": {
"lat": "<lat>"
},
"name": "reverse_geocode"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / latAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Latitude",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / lonAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Longitude",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "lat"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the input/output pair. It does not state whether a network/provider call is involved, whether an API key or rate limit applies, how partial or ambiguous results are handled, or what happens with invalid or out-of-range coordinates.
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?
Zero waste and maximally front-loaded, but the single four-word fragment lacks structure and reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no sentence-level information an agent could quote as behavior.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, flat object) but has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain the returned address shape, optional `lon` semantics, or error behavior — and it covers none of this. It is inadequate for anything beyond the most trivial call.
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 description coverage is 100% (both params documented as "Latitude" and "Longitude"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing further, and notably does not clarify why `lon` is optional despite being essential for a meaningful coordinate pair, nor any expected range or precision.
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?
"Coordinates to address" states the input and output of the operation, so the direction of conversion (reverse geocoding) is inferable and distinguishable from the sibling `geocode`. However, it is a telegraphic noun fragment with no verb, no mention of the actual resource (a place/address lookup), and no explicit naming of the opposite sibling.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus `geocode` (address → coordinates) or `geolocate_ip`, nor any prerequisites, input validity conditions, or caveats. The agent must infer usage entirely from the four-word phrase.
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.