here_reverse_geocodeTurn coordinates into the nearest street address (reverse geocoding) via HERE — "what address is at 40.7484, -73.9857". Returns the normalized address, place title, and distance to the matched location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude, e.g. 40.7484. | |
| lng | Yes | Longitude, e.g. -73.9857. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "lat": 40.7484,
+ "lng": -73.9857
+ },
+ {
+ "lat": 48.8584,
+ "lng": 2.2945
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds useful behavioral information: 'Returns the normalized address, place title, and distance to the matched location'. No contradictions or extra behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 states purpose, second states return values. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Extremely 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description fully covers its operation. It explains inputs and outputs adequately, with no missing context.
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%, and parameters are well-described in the schema. The description mentions coordinates and provides examples, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema properties.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn coordinates into the nearest street address (reverse geocoding)'. It provides an example query format and distinguishes from siblings by naming 'reverse geocoding' (as opposed to forward geocoding in here_geocode).
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?
Usage is evident from the purpose and example. It explains what the tool does and gives a concrete query example. However, no explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided.
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.