Skip to main content
Glama

Mapbox

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Geocode Forward

geocode_forward
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What are the coordinates of [address]" / "geocode [place]" / "lat lng for [location]" / "find [city] on a map" — convert a street address, city, or place name to GPS coordinates (longitude / latitude) using Mapbox's global geocoder. Works on any street, intersection, POI, or administrative area worldwide. Example: geocode_forward({ query: "1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC" }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bboxNo
limitNo
queryYes
typesNo
countryNo
languageNo
proximityNo
fuzzyMatchNo
autocompleteNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      [
  {
    "query": "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC"
  },
  {
    "country": "FR",
    "language": "en",
    "limit": 5,
    "query": "Eiffel Tower"
  }
]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Before
      null
      After
      {
  "description": "Mapbox Geocoding API response for forward geocoding",
  "type": "object"
}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds scope context (any street, POI, administrative area worldwide) and the use of Mapbox, but does not disclose rate limits, response details, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

The description is compact (two sentences plus an example), front-loaded with trigger phrases, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's core function. No wasted words or redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, with 9 parameters and zero explanatory coverage in the description, an agent is unlikely to know how to use optional parameters like bbox or proximity. The description is adequate for the basic query case but incomplete for advanced usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage, and the description only illustrates the 'query' parameter with an example. It does not explain the meaning or use of the other 8 optional parameters (bbox, limit, types, country, language, proximity, fuzzyMatch, autocomplete), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 that the tool converts a street address, city, or place name to GPS coordinates using Mapbox's global geocoder. It also includes natural language examples ('What are the coordinates of...') and distinguishes it from reverse geocoding by using 'forward' and listing sibling geocode_reverse.

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 context through example user queries and states it works 'worldwide' on various place types. It does not explicitly contrast with geocode_reverse or other siblings, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Mapbox 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and several tools serve similar data-retrieval functions, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., geocode_forward, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity). A few less descriptive names (forget, recall) exist but overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far too many for a server branded as 'Mapbox'. Only about 8 tools directly relate to map/geospatial functionality; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory). The scope is dramatically overextended.

Completeness2/5

The Mapbox-specific tools lack coverage of major features like style management, tilesets, or data upload. The non-Mapbox tools cover their domains moderately, but the server's overall completeness for its named purpose (Mapbox) is severely lacking.

Resources