Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Footprint

by io.github.TigerManOnFire
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find a place in India

footprint_search_places
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find places in India by name and get their coordinates, to use with the other Footprint tools.

Searches about 1.2 million places down to villages. Indian village names repeat heavily (dozens of Rampurs), so each match gives its kind (city, town, village, locality, district, state), its state and, for villages and localities, the nearest town ("near Zaidpur"). Returns name, kind, state, near, lat, lon for each match, best first. A pasted "lat, lon" also works.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "footprint_search_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many matches to return.
queryYesPlace name: village, locality, town, city, district or state. E.g. 'Whitefield', 'Karumuru', 'Rampur'.
near_latNoOptional: rank matches near this latitude first.
near_lonNoOptional: rank matches near this longitude first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds real context: dataset coverage, the heavy village-name ambiguity in India, the disambiguation fields returned (kind, state, near), and result ordering ("best first"). It does not mention matching tolerance such as transliteration, partial names, or what an empty result looks like.

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 purpose and kept to four short sentences with no filler; the rationale for disambiguation fields earns its space. Minor deduction for hard line breaks that split sentences mid-clause and slightly disrupt scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (name, kind, state, near, lat, lon) and their order, which is exactly what the agent needs. It leaves open edge-case behavior — no-match responses, and what "best first" ranking actually optimizes when near_lat/near_lon are supplied.

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%, so query, limit, near_lat and near_lon are already documented, and the description's mention of returned kind/state/near mostly restates the schema's own examples. It does add one genuine behavior not in the schema — that query also accepts a pasted "lat, lon" — and explains why proximity matters (dozens of Rampurs), which is a modest supplement above baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Find places in India by name and get their coordinates") plus a concrete scope (about 1.2 million places down to villages). It also frames the tool as a feeder for the other Footprint tools, which implies it is the entry point rather than a competitor to footprint_get_area or footprint_top_areas, but it never names a sibling to distinguish against explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"to use with the other Footprint tools" tells the agent this is the lookup step preceding area tools, and the note that "A pasted \"lat, lon\" also works" covers an alternate invocation path. Missing is any explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. what to do if the place is outside India or no match is returned.

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

All Footprint toolsInspect
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