validate_addressCheck whether a free-text address exists in the official register and return its normalized form with coordinates. Uses fuzzy matching, so it also corrects small spelling errors. Returns valid, the best normalized match, and alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Address to validate, e.g. 'karl johans gt 1 oslo' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the schema: fuzzy matching, spelling error correction, and the return of valid status, the best match, and alternatives. With no annotations provided, this is useful transparency, though it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe any underlying data source limitations.
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 efficient and well-structured: purpose is stated first, followed by behavior and return values. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary filler.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it behaves with fuzzy matching, and what it returns. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it, though more explicit return shape details could improve completeness.
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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented with a concrete example. The description adds the nuance that the input is free-text, but it does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: checking whether a free-text address exists in the official register and returning its normalized form with coordinates. It is distinct in behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_address, which may also handle address-like queries.
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?
The intended use is implied through the description: validate and normalize an address. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_address or other sibling tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are 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.