Skip to main content
Glama

Geo Reverse Geocode

geo_reverse_geocode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert coordinates to a physical address. Returns street address, city, country, and postal code. Use to identify locations from lat/lng pairs.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "latitude": 40.7128,
      "longitude": -74.006
    },
    "name": "geo_reverse_geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYesLatitude
longitudeYesLongitude

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesDetailed address components as key-value pairs
display_nameYesFormatted address string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a list of returned fields, which the output schema already supplies, and says nothing about coverage gaps, precision, or partial-result behavior for open water or unmapped coordinates.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is buried or repeated unnecessarily.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain returns or safety. It covers purpose and input shape adequately for a two-parameter lookup, missing only routing guidance against the sibling geocoder.

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% and the schema even carries worked examples, so the two parameters are fully documented structurally. The description's phrase "lat/lng pairs" restates the schema without adding format, range, or coordinate-system meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Convert coordinates to a physical address" gives a specific verb and resource, and names the returned fields, which makes the inverse relationship to geo_geocode inferable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the forward-geocoding sibling, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use to identify locations from lat/lng pairs" implies the input shape but not the decision rule: nothing says when to pick this over geo_geocode or when coordinates are the wrong starting point. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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.