Look up a US address or place and get its coordinates.
Use it to confirm which place the user means before planning, or
when a trip tool answers needs_clarification. Returns up to `limit`
matches with a ready-to-pass `coords` string for the *_coords
arguments of the trip tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| near | No | Optional 'lat,lon' to prefer matches near. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | What to look up: an address, business, landmark or town. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description still adds value by disclosing the return shape (up to `limit` matches, each with a ready-to-pass `coords` string for *_coords arguments) and the implicit US-only scope, which no annotation states. It stops short of mentioning ambiguity ranking or failure modes when nothing matches.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, usage routed in the second. No repetition of the title or schema fields, and every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description steps in to describe the return value (matches with a `coords` string) and its downstream use, which is the key missing piece. Minor gap: nothing on how ambiguous matches are ordered or what an empty result means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: `query` and `near` are documented, but `limit` has no schema description. The description partially compensates by saying results are capped at `limit` matches, but it never explains when to pass `near` or how proximity affects ranking. Baseline 3 fits a schema doing most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('look up a US address or place') plus the concrete output ('get its coordinates'). This clearly separates it from all seventeen siblings, none of which do geocoding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names two triggering situations: confirming which place the user means before planning, and when a trip tool answers needs_clarification. That is a real use/when-not contract tied to concrete sibling behavior, not just implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.