Search for a location by name. Returns a list of matching places with addresses. Use this to find the pickup or dropoff location before booking a ride.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Optional latitude to bias results toward the user's area | |
| lng | No | Optional longitude to bias results toward the user's area | |
| query | Yes | The place name or address to search for, e.g. "Lekki Phase 1" or "Murtala Muhammed Airport" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns a list of matching places with addresses'), which is the key behavioral trait. It also implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate for a search tool. No contradictions or significant gaps are present.
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 action and result, and a clear usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately specifies the return type (list with addresses) and the primary use case. It could mention optional lat/lng biasing, but the schema already covers that, so the description is complete enough.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce that 'query' is the main search term. No compensation needed.
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 states the verb 'Search' and resource 'a location by name', and explicitly says it returns a list of matching places with addresses. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_place_details, the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.
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 description gives a specific use case: 'Use this to find the pickup or dropoff location before booking a ride.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_place_details.
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.