SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Resolves a postal code in one country to its place names

agent_intel_global_postal_geocode_resolver

Read-only

Resolves a postal code in one country (ISO 2-letter code, e.g. US, DE, TR, GB) to its place names, state or province, and latitude and longitude, from Zippopotam.us. Covers only the countries that service publishes. No time zone or administrative municipality is returned, since no free source for them was used. Takes about 14 s; allow a 30 s timeout. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_iban_routing_swift_resolver when you need to validate an IBAN and, if it passes, looks up the bank. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "country": "<country>",
      "postalCode": "<postalCode>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_global_postal_geocode_resolver"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	Yes	Two-letter ISO country code, e.g. US, DE, TR, GB
`postalCode`	Yes	Postal code as written for that country, 2 to 12 characters

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`places`	No
`source`	No
`country`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`postalCode`	No
`countryCode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the upstream source, that coverage is limited to published countries, what is deliberately NOT returned (time zone, administrative municipality), a ~14 s latency with a recommended 30 s timeout, and pay-per-call pricing where only successful calls are charged. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs to plan a call.

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 behavior and the useful constraints (coverage, latency, pricing) come next in a logical order. The trailing pointer to the IBAN resolver is tangential to this tool's purpose and is the one sentence that does not fully earn its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers source, coverage limits, exclusions, latency and cost. It stops short of describing error behavior (invalid or unsupported country, malformed postal code) or how to handle a failed lookup, which would matter for a paid, open-world call.

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 both parameters (country, postalCode) are already documented with examples and ranges in the schema. The description repeats the ISO 2-letter examples but adds no new semantics such as normalization rules or case handling, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (resolves) plus resource (postal code in one country) and enumerates exactly what comes back: place names, state/province, latitude and longitude. It also names the data source (Zippopotam.us) and the country-code examples, so an agent knows precisely what this does before 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 constraints are implied well (needs a postal code plus a country the service publishes) and the coverage limit is stated. However, the only explicit routing sentence points to agent_intel_iban_routing_swift_resolver, which is unrelated to geocoding, and no alternative is offered for adjacent needs such as reverse geocoding or addresses without postal codes, so when-to-use vs. a real alternative is left to inference.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?