Skip to main content
Glama

Danmark Data

Nearest address to coordinates

reverse_geocode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the nearest official Danish address to a GPS position.

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": {
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lon": "<lon>"
    },
    "name": "reverse_geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude (WGS84)
lonYesLongitude (WGS84)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It usefully narrows scope to official Danish addresses, but does not say what happens when the coordinates fall outside Denmark or when no address is nearby — the most likely failure mode for a reverse geocoder.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and qualifies it with 'nearest' and 'official Danish'. Every word carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. Only the out-of-coverage / no-match behavior is left unstated, which is a modest gap for a two-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100%: lat and lon are titled, typed, described as WGS84, and bounded to Denmark's bounding box. The description adds no coordinate format, precision, or ordering detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('nearest official Danish address') with an explicit input ('GPS position'). The geographic and 'nearest/official' qualifiers implicitly distinguish it from forward-search siblings like search_address, but no sibling is named directly.

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?

The phrase 'reverse' geocoding implies coordinates-to-address direction, which is usable guidance against forward address search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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.

Resources