Skip to main content
Glama

GBG Loqate - Reach

verify_address

Read-only

Verify an address against Loqate's global reference data. Returns a confidence score (0-1), verification status, and a policy-driven accept/review/reject recommendation. Set 'suggest' to also get alternative addresses suggested by Loqate whenever the address does not clear the policy; offer them to the user and verify the chosen one in a second call before treating it as good. Suggestions require a separately licensed Loqate feature enabled on the account — without it, verification still succeeds and the problem is reported in suggestions.error. Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field (get one at account.loqate.com).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoLoqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header (get one at account.loqate.com)
policyNoPolicy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive
addressNoFull address string (free-form — use this OR structured fields below)
countryNoISO 2-letter country code (e.g. US GB DE)
optionsNoLoqate API options. Pass GeoCode here as a boolean — it is sent at the request root where Loqate expects it. In-Options booleans (Certify Version Enhance Deceased Goneaways) take JSON booleans; ServerOptions values (e.g. OutputCasing DefaultCountry) are strings
premiseNoPremise or house number
suggestNoWhen true, look up alternative addresses suggested by Loqate and return them in the result as suggestions. Requires the Loqate address-suggestion feature to be enabled on the account (licensed separately from verification) — without it, verification still succeeds and the reason appears in suggestions.error. The lookup runs when the address is not accepted (review or reject) OR when it is accepted below the confidence floor (see suggest_below) — a policy accepts from its own minimum, so an accepted address is not necessarily a confident one. Address-only; off by default
address2NoSecond address line
address3NoThird address line
address4NoFourth address line
address5NoFifth address line
address6NoSixth address line
address7NoSeventh address line
address8NoEighth address line
buildingNoBuilding name
latitudeNoLatitude for reverse geocode
localityNoCity or town
post_boxNoPO Box number
postcodeNoPostal or ZIP code
longitudeNoLongitude for reverse geocode
admin_areaNoState or province
verify_keyNoCustom address verification API key (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_KEY env var)
verify_urlNoCustom address verification endpoint URL (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_URL env var)
organizationNoOrganization or business name
sub_buildingNoSub-building (e.g. apartment, suite)
thoroughfareNoStreet name
suggest_belowNoConfidence floor for suggestions (0-1). An accepted address scoring below it still gets suggestions — policies accept from their own minimum, so an accepted address is not necessarily a confident one. Omit to use the policy value (standard 0.85); 0 disables the floor so only review/reject trigger a lookup
suggest_limitNoMaximum number of suggestions to return (1-10, default 5). Requires suggest
suggestion_idNoId of a suggestion previously returned in address.suggestions. The tool retrieves that address's cleansed components from Loqate and verifies those, which is how you confirm a suggestion the user chose. Use INSTEAD OF address, not alongside it. CONSUMES A LOQATE CREDIT — pass one id, for the one suggestion that was chosen, never several. Ids are not stable over time; a stale one returns SUGGESTION_NOT_FOUND and you must search again rather than retry
detect_countryNoWhen true and no country is supplied, guess the country from the address and flag the guess in the result (country_guessed). Address-only; off by default
delivery_addressNoFull delivery address
delivery_address1NoDelivery address line 1
delivery_address2NoDelivery address line 2
delivery_address3NoDelivery address line 3
delivery_address4NoDelivery address line 4
delivery_address5NoDelivery address line 5
delivery_address6NoDelivery address line 6
delivery_address7NoDelivery address line 7
delivery_address8NoDelivery address line 8
dependent_localityNoDependent locality (e.g. neighborhood)
sub_building_floorNoFloor number
dependent_thoroughfareNoDependent street name
sub_administrative_areaNoSub administrative area (e.g. county)
double_dependent_localityNoDouble dependent locality
super_administrative_areaNoSuper administrative area (e.g. region)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior: policy-driven accept/review/reject, the suggestion feature requiring a separately licensed Loqate feature, error reporting in suggestions.error, and the API key requirement. The schema further details credit consumption for suggestion_id, which is additive and does not contradict the readOnly hint. Slight deduction for not explicitly flagging cost side-effects in the main description.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, outputs, suggest workflow, licensing, and key requirements. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity. A more structured format (bullets) would earn a 5, but it's already quite efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 45 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core verification flow, the suggestion handling, and a key error case (suggestions.error). It summarizes return values well enough to set expectations. With 100% schema description coverage and annotations, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema means a bit more explicit return info could have helped, hence 4.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces semantics for key parameters ('Set suggest to also get alternative addresses', 'pass it via the key field') but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions. It adds a small amount of contextual value, hence a 3.

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's purpose: 'Verify an address against Loqate's global reference data' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists key return values (confidence score, verification status, recommendation), and the name plus sibling context (verify_contact/email/phone) make its focus on addresses unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance for the suggest workflow: enable suggest, offer alternatives to the user, and verify the chosen one in a second call. It also explains when suggestions trigger and the licensing caveat. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling verification tools (e.g., when to prefer retrieve_address), so it's not a 5.

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

Try in Browser

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.