zipexplore-mcp

search_zips

Find ZIP codes matching one or more criteria. Returns a ranked list with scores. Use this first when the user wants recommendations (e.g. "find a low-crime suburb near Denver"). Call get_search_fields first if you're unsure what field names to use.

    criteria: list of {"field": str, "level": "low"|"medium"|"high"}
    area_types: "CITY" | "SUBURB" | "SMALL_TOWN" | "RURAL"
    regions: "northeast" | "southeast" | "midwest" | "southwest" | "west"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`states`	No
`regions`	No
`criteria`	Yes
`area_types`	No
`minimum_completeness`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (ranked list with scores) and the criteria format. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are not critical for a read-only search tool. The description is transparent enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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?

The description is concise and uses bullet points to list key parameters, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it repeats parameter names that are already in the schema, which adds some redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for the main use case but does not fully document all parameters or the complete return structure. It covers usage for recommendations but omits details on default behavior for limit and min_completeness.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for criteria, area_types, and regions by explaining their formats and allowed values. However, it does not describe limit, states, or minimum_completeness, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states 'Find ZIP codes matching one or more criteria. Returns a ranked list with scores.' This specific verb and resource, combined with the ranking aspect, distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_zips and the various profile tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this first when the user wants recommendations...' and 'Call get_search_fields first if you're unsure what field names to use.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All zipexplore-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Domain-specific profiles (e.g., get_air_quality_profile) are explicitly for deeper dives after get_zip_profile, while search, reverse geocode, research, and methodology tools each serve unique roles with no overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_<domain>_profile, search_zips, reverse_geocode, compare_zips, get_research, get_methodology, etc. The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool addresses a specific need (12 domain profiles, search, geocoding, articles, methodology, ping). The count is appropriate for the breadth of data offered.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover (search_zips, get_search_fields), retrieve (get_zip_profile, domain profiles), compare (compare_zips), and ancillary (reverse_geocode, get_research, get_methodology). There are no dead ends or obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?