search_municipalityLook up a French commune (municipality) by name to resolve its INSEE citycode, postcode, population and centre coordinates. Shortcut for geocode with type=municipality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Commune name, e.g. "montpellier". | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 5). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "q": "montpellier"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 3,
+ "q": "paris"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the resolved data fields (INSEE code, postcode, population, coordinates), which helps the agent understand the operational behavior without being too verbose.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences: the first clearly answers 'what does this do', and the second references the alternative. There is no redundant phrasing and it is front-loaded, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and strong annotations. The description explains the output fields but does not explicitly state that the tool returns multiple results or describe the response format. Considering the absence of an output schema, a note about the list nature would improve completeness, but it is otherwise adequate.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (q and limit), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds the phrase 'by name' which matches q, but doesn't offer any additional semantic nuance beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('French commune'), and lists the exact output fields (INSEE citycode, postcode, population, centre coordinates). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool geocode by labeling itself as a shortcut, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly mentions it is a 'shortcut for geocode with type=municipality', giving clear context for when to use it instead of the more general geocode tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other lookup tools like reverse_geocode, so there is a minor gap.
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.