Skip to main content
Glama

GBG Loqate - Reach

by io.github.gbgplc

retrieve_address

Read-only

Resolve a suggestion id from address.suggestions into its full cleansed address components (organisation, sub-building, number, street, city, province, postcode, country). Use this when you need the address itself — to fill a form or show a confirmation — rather than a decision; to verify a chosen suggestion instead, pass 'suggestion_id' to verify_address. CONSUMES A LOQATE CREDIT per call, so resolve only the one suggestion the user chose. The result is reference data, NOT a verification. Requires a Loqate API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoLoqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header
suggestion_idYesId of a suggestion previously returned in address.suggestions. CONSUMES A LOQATE CREDIT. Ids are not stable over time; a stale one returns SUGGESTION_NOT_FOUND and you must search again rather than retry

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical context: the tool consumes a Loqate credit and the result is reference data, not a verification. This goes beyond annotations. However, the consumption of a credit could be seen as a side effect not captured by readOnlyHint, but it does not contradict it.

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 a single paragraph that is information-dense. It front-loads the purpose and includes usage guidance, behavioral notes, and parameter context. Some repetition of 'CONSUMES A LOQATE CREDIT' could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should enumerate the returned address components. It mentions components like organisation, sub-building, number, street, city, province, postcode, country, but does not specify the structure or whether all are always present. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'key' is optional if server-configured or if Authorization header is present, and that 'suggestion_id' may become stale requiring a new search. These details help the agent handle errors correctly.

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 the tool resolves a suggestion id into full address components, using specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'address components'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_address' by explaining the decision vs. reference data use case.

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 ('when you need the address itself') and when not to ('to verify a chosen suggestion instead, pass suggestion_id to verify_address'). It also notes the cost of a Loqate credit, guiding the agent to use it sparingly.

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

All GBG Loqate - Reach toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Overlap exists between verify_address and verify_contact (which can verify address alone), but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each. list_policies and show_policy are clearly separate (list vs detail), and retrieve_address is distinct as a reference data lookup. No tools are truly ambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_policies, show_policy, retrieve_address, verify_address, etc.). The verbs are clear and uniformly styled, with no mixed conventions or vague names.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a verification server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose—policy management, address resolution, and verification for address/email/phone/contact—without unnecessary redundancy or excessive count.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the core lifecycle of verification: policy exploration (list/show), address resolution from suggestions, and verification across all contact channels, including combined contact verification. The ability to request suggestions during verification and then resolve them to full addresses ensures a complete workflow with no dead ends.

Resources