Boundr

search_boundaries_by_name

Search for UK administrative boundaries by name (case-insensitive partial match).

Use this to discover boundaries when you have a place name but not a code. Returns lightweight metadata only — no geometry. If you need to display or analyse the boundary shape, call get_boundary_geojson_by_code() with the returned code.

Call list_boundary_type_codes() first if you need to filter by type and are unsure which code to use.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Full or partial boundary name. Case-insensitive. Examples: "Hackney", "Greater Manchester", "York", "Kent".
`boundary_type`	No	Optional type code to narrow results, e.g. "LBO" for London Boroughs or "CTY" for Counties. Must be a code from list_boundary_type_codes(); raises ValueError otherwise.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool performs a case-insensitive partial match, returns only lightweight metadata (no geometry), and that an invalid boundary_type code raises ValueError. This sufficiently discloses key behavioral traits for a simple search tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then usage, then next steps. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description mentions 'Returns lightweight metadata only — no geometry', providing necessary context. It also references sibling tools appropriately. For a tool with 2 parameters and clear behavior, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the case-insensitive partial match semantics for 'name' and provides examples. For 'boundary_type', it explains how to obtain valid codes and warns about ValueError, adding context beyond the schema.

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 'Search for UK administrative boundaries by name (case-insensitive partial match)', specifying the verb, resource, and matching semantics. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns lightweight metadata only and points to get_boundary_geojson_by_code for geometry, and references list_boundary_type_codes for filtering.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover boundaries when you have a place name but not a code.' It also provides guidance on when to use a sibling: 'Call list_boundary_type_codes() first if you need to filter by type.' Additionally, it mentions the alternative for geometry retrieval.

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

All Boundr 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: point lookup, bounding box, metadata by code, full geometry, simplified geometry, type codes listing, and name search. Even the two geometry tools are clearly differentiated by simplification level.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_boundaries_at_point, get_boundary_bbox, list_boundary_type_codes). The naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a UK boundary lookup service. It covers all core operations without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides complete coverage for readonly boundary access: name search, point lookup, metadata retrieval, bounding box, and geometry (full and simplified). No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?