AgentGeo — Geocoding, Weather & Location
Server Details
Location intelligence — geocoding & reverse geocoding (OpenStreetMap), weather forecasts (Open-Meteo), timezone lookup, and Point of Interest search (restaurants, hotels, hospitals, 20+ types).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: geocoding (forward/reverse), timezone lookup, and weather data. There is no overlap in their purposes, making them easy to distinguish.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: geocode_address, get_timezone, get_weather. The naming is predictable and clear.
Three tools perfectly cover the server's stated purpose (geocoding, weather, and timezone) without unnecessary extras. The count is lean and well-scoped.
The tool set covers forward and reverse geocoding, current weather and forecast, and timezone data. Missing minor features like elevation or sunrise/sunset, but core workflows are complete.
Available Tools
3 toolsgeocode_addressBInspect
Forward or reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. Forward: convert an address to lat/lon. Reverse: convert lat/lon to an address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Address or place name to forward geocode | |
| lat | No | Latitude for reverse geocoding | |
| lon | No | Longitude for reverse geocoding | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 5) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using Nominatim but omits critical details like rate limits, data source restrictions, accuracy, or response format. This is minimal disclosure.
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 consists of two sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and quickly covers both modes.
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?
With 4 parameters, two operation modes, and no output schema, the description should explain return values (e.g., coordinates or addresses). It lacks this critical information, leaving the agent guessing about the response structure.
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%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds clarity by naming forward vs reverse modes, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3.
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 forward and reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim, specifying the verb (geocode) and resource (address/lat/lon). It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like get_timezone and get_weather which are unrelated.
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 description implies usage for two distinct modes (forward/reverse) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any constraints. Without sibling conflict, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_timezoneAInspect
Get timezone and country information by coordinates, country code/name, or IP address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IP address for timezone lookup | |
| lat | No | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude | |
| country | No | ISO country code (US, DE) or country name |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies read-only operation but doesn't disclose handling of multiple parameters or error conditions.
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?
Single sentence, 16 words, front-loaded, no wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, description could hint at return structure. Currently adequate for a simple lookup but not comprehensive.
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%, description reiterates query methods but adds minimal new semantics beyond parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'timezone and country information', lists query methods. Distinguishes from siblings geocode_address and get_weather.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but tool name and description imply timezone lookup context; lacking differentiation guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_weatherBInspect
Current weather and multi-day forecast for any location. Provide coordinates or a city name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude | |
| days | No | Forecast days (1-7, default 3) | |
| units | No | metric or imperial | metric |
| location | No | City name (geocoded automatically) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions input options, lacking details on data freshness, error handling, rate limits, or output structure.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose, but could be slightly more structured to separate input options.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it does not explain the return value format or what weather data fields are included, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming that either lat/lon or city name can be used, but does not clarify parameter relationships or 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 clearly states that the tool provides current weather and multi-day forecast for any location via coordinates or city name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like geocode_address and get_timezone.
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 description implies use for weather data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any usage exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!