pincode_to_locality
Decode a 6-digit Indian PIN code: region + likely state(s). For exact city lookup, use the bundled India-Post lookup table (premium, private repo).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pincode | Yes |
Indic Normalize
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions output is 'likely state(s)', indicating uncertainty, but lacks detail on internal behavior (e.g., local vs remote data, side effects, auth needs). Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, alternative mentioned succinctly.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema; description covers input constraints and alternative use case. Could optionally describe return format (e.g., example structure) but not necessary for clarity.
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 has 0% description coverage for parameter; the description adds that pincode is a 6-digit Indian PIN code, providing validation hint beyond the schema's 'string' type.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Decode', resource '6-digit Indian PIN code', and output 'region + likely state(s)'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the bundled India-Post lookup table for exact city lookup.
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?
Explicitly tells when not to use (if exact city needed) and directs to an alternative tool ('bundled India-Post lookup table').
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools cover distinct tasks: script detection, identifier validation, address/name normalization, and transliteration. Some overlap exists (e.g., PIN codes appear in both pincode_to_locality and normalize_address), but descriptions clarify each tool's role.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case, but the pattern varies: detect_script, normalize_address, and normalize_name are verb_noun, while gstin_info, pincode_to_locality, and state_from_pan are noun_verb. transliterate is just a verb, breaking the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well within the ideal range (3-15) and appropriately covers the server's domain of Indian text and identifier processing without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core functionality: script detection, address/name normalization, PIN and PAN/GSTIN extraction, and transliteration. Missing operations like Aadhaar validation or bulk processing are minor given the stated purpose.