county_for_pointLightweight reverse geocode: return just the county and state for a US latitude/longitude (decimal degrees) — county FIPS + name, state FIPS + code + name. Convenience wrapper over the FCC block-find service for when you only need the containing county/state, not the full block record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees. | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "lat": 38.8976,
+ "lon": -77.0365
+ },
+ {
+ "lat": 41.8781,
+ "lon": -87.6298
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining it is a convenience wrapper over FCC service and its limited scope, but does not cover error handling or rate limits.
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 sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second provides context and differentiation. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is complete. It explains what returns (county/state FIPS, name, code) and when to use, despite lacking an output schema.
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 100% with descriptions for both lat and lon. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates that inputs are US coordinates.
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 clearly states it is a lightweight reverse geocode returning county and state for US lat/lng, specifying output fields (FIPS, name, code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like census_block by noting it returns only county/state, not the full block record.
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 says 'when you only need the containing county/state, not the full block record', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It also positions itself as a lightweight wrapper, implying efficiency.
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.
Several tools cluster around the same core purpose: the three ask_pipeworx variants, the three census reverse-geocoders, and the six Polymarket analysis tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate most choices, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine ambiguity. An agent could easily select the wrong tool in these overlapping families.
Names mix verb-initial actions (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun-initial compound names (census_block, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a uniform verb_noun convention. Single-word verbs like remember, recall, and forget further break the pattern.
At 34 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25 and includes clear redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, county_for_point is a thin wrapper over the same service as census_area/census_block, and scan_competitor_ai_presence just loops ai_visibility_check. The broad scope does not justify this many tools, and the set would be better split into focused servers.
Each sub-domain has solid lifecycle coverage: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and company research has resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetching tool), but no critical dead ends that would cause agent failures.