Skip to main content
Glama

Resolve a NSW street address to its official form and latitude/longitude.

nsw_da_resolve_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a NSW street address to its official form and latitude/longitude. Matches the address against the NSW address register and returns matched_address, lat and lng. Use it to check an address before nsw_da_search_nearby_applications, nsw_cdc_search_nearby_applications or nsw_property_get_planning_report, which accept the same address or the returned lat and lng. An ambiguous address returns an error with suggested matches; an unknown one returns address_not_found. Free, no payment needed. Source: NSW Spatial Services, CC BY 4.0.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "nsw_da_resolve_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesStreet number, street and suburb; a trailing state and postcode are accepted and ignored (e.g. 10 Brigalow Ave, Casula NSW 2170)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoResult: a list of applications for search and nearby tools, one record or summary object otherwise
metaYesPaging and query details, e.g. limit, offset, has_more, count
attributionYesSource attribution; keep it when presenting the data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"NSW street address with suburb (e.g. 10 Brigalow Ave, Casula NSW 2170)"New value: +"Street number, street and suburb; a trailing state and postcode are accepted and ignored (e.g. 10 Brigalow Ave, Casula NSW 2170)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world profile, and the description goes further by disclosing the two distinct error outcomes and their payloads, the cost model ('Free, no payment needed'), and the data source and license. These are exactly the operational details annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered purpose → outputs → usage/alternatives → failure modes → cost/source. The usage pointer to siblings is front-loaded ahead of the edge-case behavior, and no sentence repeats the annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need no prose, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with error semantics and the explicit hand-off to downstream planning tools, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'address' parameter already documents accepted input format, including that state and postcode are tolerated. The description adds no syntax or normalization detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a NSW street address') and the mechanism ('Matches the address against the NSW address register'), plus the concrete outputs (matched_address, lat, lng). This is clearly distinguishable from the search/get siblings that dominate the list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use it 'before nsw_da_search_nearby_applications, nsw_cdc_search_nearby_applications or nsw_property_get_planning_report', names why (they accept the same address or returned lat/lng), and specifies the failure conditions (ambiguous → error with suggested matches, unknown → address_not_found). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources