Resolve a free-text place name to a bounding box via Nominatim.
Returns ``{"bbox": [min_lon, min_lat, max_lon, max_lat], "display_name":
...}`` so the agent can inspect the box before searching, or pass it
straight to ``search_catalog``'s ``bbox``.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful context by identifying Nominatim as the external service and documenting the returned bbox/display_name structure. It does not discuss rate limits, ambiguity handling, or error behavior, but it adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return shape and usage. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant text.
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?
For a simple one-parameter geocoding tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, output shape, and sibling integration adequately. Minor gaps remain around no-match behavior and result ambiguity, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden for the single required parameter. It does this by describing query as a free-text place name, which is more informative than the bare schema field name, though it does not give examples or format constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource: resolve a free-text place name to a bounding box. It names the underlying service (Nominatim) and clarifies the exact output shape, making the tool easily distinguishable from catalog search or scene tools.
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?
It explains the intended workflow: inspect the returned box before searching, or pass it directly to search_catalog's bbox. This gives clear usage context and names the relevant sibling, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or failure cases.
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.