get_embed_codeThe HTML snippet that puts this locator on a website, plus the public site id it carries. Paste it where the map should appear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| near | No | A place to search near when the page opens, e.g. 'Austin, TX'. | |
| tags | No | Lock this embed to locations carrying any of these tags (names or slugs), for a page about one product, service or region. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / nearAdded value: +{
+ "description": "A place to search near when the page opens, e.g. 'Austin, TX'.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tagsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Lock this embed to locations carrying any of these tags (names or slugs), for a page about one product, service or region.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing the exact return payload: an HTML snippet carrying a public site ID. This is sufficient for a simple getter.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main deliverable and ending with actionable placement guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description explains enough about the return value and how to use it. It only lacks minor cross-tool routing context, which is already captured under usage guidelines.
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?
The input schema describes both parameters fully with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.
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 identifies the resource (embed code for this locator) and what it returns (an HTML snippet plus the public site ID), going beyond the title. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or use a direct retrieval verb.
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?
The last sentence implies a use case: paste the snippet where the map should appear on a website. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or when to use the optional near/tags parameters.
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.