Resolve a postal address to formattedAddress + lat/lon for create_fiche (cover map and 150 m WiFi geofence). Optional country ISO2. Requires Bearer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Address search, min 3 characters | |
| country | No | Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. fr |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the Bearer auth requirement and the output shape, which is useful. However, it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or what happens on an unmatched address, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: action, output, purpose, and auth are all included. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, use case, and authentication. It lacks explicit failure-mode handling or edge-case notes, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%: both 'query' and 'country' have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds 'postal address' to clarify the query's expected input and restates optionality, but it does not significantly extend the schema's meaning.
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?
Describes a specific operation ('Resolve a postal address') with explicit output ('formattedAddress + lat/lon') and a named consumer ('create_fiche'). The verb-resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD and webhook tools.
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?
States the intended use ('for create_fiche (cover map and 150 m WiFi geofence)'), which tells an agent when to call this tool. No exclusions are needed because there is no sibling geocoding alternative, and the mention of Bearer auth provides a prerequisite.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: fiches have create/get/list/update/delete, shares have create/list/revoke, webhooks have register/list/update/delete, and geocode/status/subscribe are separate supporting operations. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as create_fiche, revoke_share, and register_webhook. Minor deviations exist—status is noun-only, subscribe has no explicit object, and list_fiches pluralizes while create_fiche does not—but the naming remains predictable.
Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each tool maps to a concrete operation needed for the service: fiche lifecycle, sharing, webhooks, and account management. No redundant or filler tools are present.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for fiches, share creation/listing/revocation, webhook registration/listing/update/deletion, and account subscription/status. Agents can complete the main workflows around creating, sharing, and managing access sheets without dead ends.