Skip to main content
Glama

NeuronForm 3D map models

Search places

search_places
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches places, streets, and house numbers in the place index of NeuronForm and returns candidates with name, lat, lon, and kind.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the summaries and error messages; default en.
limitNoNumber of candidates; default 5.
queryYesPlace or address, 2 to 200 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by naming the backing index and the return shape (name, lat, lon, kind), but says nothing about ranking, empty-result behavior, or cost/rate characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating action, scope, and return fields with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only three-parameter search with a fully documented schema, the definition covers action, domain, and output fields, which is enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any routing hint against the sibling find_map_elements.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents query length, the lang enum, and the limit bounds with defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain what "kind" values mean or how lang affects matching versus summaries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Searches places, streets, and house numbers in the place index") and even lists the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, find_map_elements, which also deals with map entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a place or address candidate. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of the alternative find_map_elements, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.