proximoThe address nearest to a latitude and longitude. A missing or empty value does not become zero. (0,0) is in the Gulf of Guinea, and the tool uses it only when you send it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude (WGS84), −90 to 90. | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude (WGS84), −180 to 180. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionPrevious value: -"Latitude WGS84, −90 a 90."New value: +"Latitude (WGS84), −90 to 90."Input schema / properties / lon / descriptionPrevious value: -"Longitude WGS84, −180 a 180."New value: +"Longitude (WGS84), −180 to 180."Input schema / properties / lat / descriptionAdded value: +"Latitude WGS84, −90 a 90."Input schema / properties / lon / descriptionAdded value: +"Longitude WGS84, −180 a 180."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only that missing/empty values don't become zero and that (0,0) is only used when sent. It doesn't explain what is returned, error conditions, or limitations for a geocoding lookup beyond what annotations cover.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded; the next sentence elaborates on an edge case.
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 lookup tool with no output schema and many sibling geocoding/address tools, the description lacks sufficient context on return values, coordinate system assumptions beyond WGS84 (which is in schema), or how it differs from similar tools.
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%, so the schema documents lat and lon fully. The description adds a small clarification about missing values not being zeroed and the (0,0) sentinel, but this is marginal beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (nearest address) and gives the inputs (lat, lon). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like consulta_endereco, consulta_cep, or vizinhanca, but the purpose is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as consulta_endereco or vizinhanca. Only a caveat about (0,0) and missing values is provided, which is not usage guidance.
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.