Skip to main content
Glama

Geonames

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Find Postal Codes

find_postal_codes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up postal/ZIP codes and places by each other. Pass "postal_code" (+ country) to find the place(s) a code maps to ("what city is ZIP 90210"); or pass "place" (+ country) to find the postal codes for a place name ("postal codes for Paris"). Returns place name, country, admin region (state/county), postal code, and coordinates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10, max 100).
placeNoPlace name to find postal codes for (e.g. "Paris", "Springfield"). Use instead of postal_code.
_apiKeyYesGeoNames username
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "US", "FR"). Strongly recommended — codes and place names repeat across countries.
postal_codeNoPostal/ZIP code to look up (e.g. "90210", "75001"). Provide country for accuracy.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the return fields (place name, country, admin region, postal code, coordinates) and explaining the two query modes, surpassing the annotation baseline.

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 crisp sentences: first states purpose, second elaborates with examples and return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes, return fields, and the importance of country. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the two mutually exclusive usage modes (postal_code or place), which helps the agent choose parameters correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up postal/ZIP codes and places by each other, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_geonames by focusing on reverse lookups.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage instructions: use 'postal_code' with country to find places, or 'place' with country to find codes. It emphasizes the importance of country but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Geonames toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* scanners), and the mix of unrelated domains makes it hard to tell which tool is canonical for a task. The few geographic tools are distinct, but they are buried among dozens of non-geographic tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_geonames, resolve_entity), proper-noun prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern or verb style across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far more than a Geonames-focused server needs, and most are unrelated to geospatial data. The count would be borderline for a general data platform, but it is excessive and unfocused for the stated server name.

Completeness1/5

The geographic surface is severely incomplete: only four tools (search_geonames, get_nearby, find_postal_codes, get_timezone) cover a tiny sliver of typical Geonames functionality like reverse geocoding, elevation, or distance calculations. The many non-geographic tools do not compensate for the missing core domain coverage.

Resources