AstroWay Core astrology

Nearest place to coordinates

astroway_geo_reverse

Read-onlyIdempotent

The populated place nearest to a point, by great-circle distance over the same list as /geo/search, and the IANA zone of the point itself (which near a border can differ from the place's). Works across the antimeridian and at the poles. At sea timezone is the nautical hour band (Etc/GMT+2, whose sign is inverted by POSIX convention) and nautical is true; place.distanceKm says how far the nearest place is, so a point in open water is not mistaken for a town. featureCode PPLX marks a section of a city rather than a city.

[Group: Astro-Geography] [Endpoint: GET /v1/geo/reverse] [Required: lat, lon] [Cost: 5 credits (Tier ½)]

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": "astroway_geo_reverse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	Yes	Latitude in decimal degrees, north positive.
`lon`	Yes	Longitude in decimal degrees, east positive.
`lang`	No	Language for the place, region and country names.
`fields`	No	Compact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`place`	No
`dataset`	No
`latitude`	No
`nautical`	No
`timezone`	No
`longitude`	No
`attribution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations, which already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. The description discloses real edge-case behavior: antimeridian and polar handling, that at sea `timezone` becomes a nautical hour band with POSIX-inverted signs and `nautical` is true, and that `featureCode` PPLX denotes a city section rather than a city — exactly the surprises an agent would otherwise get wrong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core answer, then progressively adds edge cases (antimeridian, sea, PPLX), which is the right ordering. It is a single dense semicolon-chained paragraph, so scannability suffers slightly, but every clause carries information an agent would not otherwise have.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, this covers everything the agent needs to call it correctly and to interpret the ambiguous returns (nautical timezone, distance in km, PPLX). The output schema carries return shape, and the description's extra notes on specific fields add interpretation rather than redundancy.

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%, so lat/lon ranges, the lang enum, and the fields/precision compact-mode semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about those parameters, nor does it clarify how `fields`/`precision` interact with the mentioned return fields — baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: returns the populated place nearest a point by great-circle distance, plus the IANA zone of the point itself. It also scopes the candidate set ('the same list as /geo/search') and distinguishes the point's zone from the place's zone near a border, so an agent can separate it from astroway_geo_timezone and astroway_geo_search without opening any schema.

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: the reference to '/geo/search' and the note that place.distanceKm prevents open water being mistaken for a town hint at when this is the right call, but there is no explicit 'use this when... use X instead' routing against astroway_geo_timezone or astroway_geo_search. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., coordinate validity, credit cost) are stated in the description itself.

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

All AstroWay Core astrology tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?